PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            5 December 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000043637

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Ann M. Campbell		Chairperson	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		Member	
	Mr. Jose A. Martinez		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
            records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

3.  The applicant states that since leaving the service he has been diagnosed with a bipolar disorder (manic depression) and if his medical records are reviewed, it will reveal that he was not diagnosed with this disorder; however, he believes that it explains the difficulties he experienced while in the service.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army in Fairbanks, Alaska on 22 May 1973 for a period of 3 years.  He completed his training at Fort Ord, California and was transferred to Fort Campbell, Kentucky on 27 September 1973 for duty as a wheel vehicle mechanic.  

5.  On 21 January 1974 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 2 January to 16 January 1974.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

6.  Nonjudicial punishment was again imposed against him on 11 February 1974 for being AWOL from 24 January to 7 February 1974.  His punishment consisted of confinement for 30 days (suspended for 90 days), a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

7.  On 10 November 1974 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for two specifications of failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, a detention of pay, and extra duty.

8.  The applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation on 18 September and 12 November 1974 and was diagnosed with a passive-aggressive personality, severe, chronic, manifested by long-standing difficulty relating to authority figures.  The difficulty results in anger, subsequent anxiety and somatic symptoms, hyperventilation and chest pains.  The examining psychiatrist opined that it was highly unlikely that he would be able to perform effectively as a soldier and recommended that he be administratively discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-5b, due to a character and behavior disorder.

9.  On 9 December 1974 the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for a character and behavior disorder.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the psychiatric evaluation, the applicant’s lack of interest in rehabilitating himself, his disciplinary record, and his negative attitude.  The applicant acknowledged the notification and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf, whereas he asserted that he had experienced a nervous problem since childhood and despite all of the counseling he had received, he could tolerate only so much stress before he no longer cared what happened to him.  He indicated that he personally desired the chapter 13 discharge.

10.  Nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him on 10 December 1974 for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2 and restriction.

11.  The commander initiated separation action against the applicant on 11 December 1974.  The appropriate authority approved the request on 17 December 1974 and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

12.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 23 December 1974, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph  13-5b(2), for a character and behavior disorder.  He had served 1 year, 6 months, and 3 days of total active service and had 29 days of lost time due to AWOL.

13.  There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

14. Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, in effect at the time, established policy and provided guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel found to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service.  An individual could be found unfit for various types of misconduct that included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities and personality disorders.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

15. Army Regulation 635-200 was revised on 1 December 1976, following settlement of a civil suit.  Thereafter, the type of discharge and the character of service was to be determined solely by the individual’s military record during the current enlistment.  Further, any separation for unsuitability, based on a personality disorder must include a diagnosis of a personality disorder made by a physician trained in psychiatry.  In connection with these changes, a Department of the Army Memorandum dated 14 January 1977, and better known as the Brotzman Memorandum, was promulgated.  It required retroactive application of revised policies, attitudes and changes in reviewing applications for upgrades of discharges based on personality disorders.  A second memorandum, dated 8 February 1978, and better known as the Nelson Memorandum, expanded the review policy and specified that the presence of a personality diagnosis would justify upgrade of a discharge to fully honorable except in cases where there are “clear and demonstrable reasons” why a fully honorable discharge should not be given.  Conviction by general court-martial or by more than one special         court-martial was determined to be “clear and demonstrable reasons” which would justify a less than fully honorable discharge.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of records shows that the applicant’s administrative separation on 8 July 1971 was accomplished in accordance with regulations then in effect.

2.  However, the general discharge appears to be unduly harsh considering that the applicant had a long-standing basic character and behavior disorder which in all likelihood existed prior to entering the Army and may tend to exist permanently.

3.  Consequently, it appears that the above mentioned memorandums should be applied to this case and that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was separated from the service with an Honorable Discharge Certificate on 23 December 1974.

2.  That the Department issue to him an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 23 December 1974, in lieu of the general discharge of the same date held by him.

BOARD VOTE:  

__amc __  __jam ___  ___alr___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Ann M. Campbell____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000043637	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000/12/05	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1974/12/23	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200/CH13	
DISCHARGE REASON	A42:00 C&B DISORDER	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  557	144.4200/A42.00 C&B DISORDER	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.