PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           2 November 2000   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000044503

	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	
	Ms. Anita L. McKim-Spilker		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member	
	Mr. William D. Barr		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 undesirable discharged (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he should have received an HD because he never had any trouble when he was in the Army. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that on 16 September 1953 he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  

5.  It appears that the applicant’s military records were lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Record Center fire of 1973.  However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States) which was authenticated by the applicant.  This document shows that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 615-368 with a UD.  

6.  The record also contains the board of officer’s proceedings which recommended the applicant’s separation from the Army.  The board of officers believed the applicant was shirking.  The board proceedings indicate that there was no misconduct on the part of the applicant during his term of service.   

7.  On 18 December 1953, after having gone on sick call for 16 days in less than a month, he was hospitalized for a complete examination to determine the source of his illness.  He was seen in consultation by the regimental surgeon to determine whether he was fit for further duty.  During the examination, the applicant reported that he had been suffering from stomach trouble for the past three years and had been unable to work regularly because of this.  The regimental surgeon’s report indicated that the applicant’s intelligence was at the lower end of the normal range; that he was extremely inadequate and immature; that he had made a poor adjustment in military and civilian life; and, because of his marked inadequacy he was unable to perform military duty effectively and attempts at rehabilitation would likely cause no improvement.   

8.  In his final treatment report, the regimental surgeon diagnosed the applicant with a severe and chronic inadequate personality, manifested by inadequate responses to physical demands and by a tendency to react to stress by means of physical complaints, such as abdominal pain.  He concluded that the applicant’s condition was a pathological personality type representing a borderline adjustment state due to deficiencies in emotional and personality development of such degree as to render this soldier unsuitable for further military service. 

9.  The regimental surgeon recommended that the applicant be separated from the service under the provisions of AR 615-369 due to unsuitability. 

10.  On 25 January 1954, notwithstanding the regimental surgeon’s medical assessment and recommendation, the applicant’s commander convened a board of officers to consider the applicant for discharge under the provisions of 
AR 615-368 for unfitness.  The applicant waived his right to counsel and appeared at the board without counsel.  In response to questioning by board members, the applicant indicated that he had joined the Army because he was young, wild, and liked the idea of wearing a uniform.  He further indicated that he wanted to get out of the Army to help his father financially and because his stomach was bothering him.     

11.  The board of officers recommended a UD due to unfitness.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 17 February 1954 after completing 5 months and
2 days active military service.

12.  AR 615-368, in effect at the time of the applicant’s discharge, provided for the elimination of enlisted personnel giving evidence of habits or traits of character rendering them undesirable for future service by reason of unfitness. Individuals discharged by reason of unfitness received an UD.  Later revision/replacement regulations prescribing the policy for the discharge of individuals by reason of unfitness could be furnished a GD or an UD. 

13.  Department of the Army (DA) message 302226Z March 1976 changed “unfitness” to “misconduct.”  In November 1977, misconduct was incorporated into AR 635-200, Enlisted Personnel, as chapter 14.  This chapter established the policy for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories included minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.   

14.  AR 615-369, in effect at the time of the applicant’s discharge, provided for the elimination of enlisted personnel when it was determined that an individual was unsuitable for further military service because of:  lack of physical stamina; character and behavior disorder; mental deficiency; apathy; nonpersistent but temporarily disruptive reactions to acute stress; and, enuresis.  Under the provisions of this regulations, individuals discharged for unsuitability would be furnished a GD.  Earlier versions of AR 615-369 and later revision/replacement regulations prescribing the policy for the discharge of individuals by reason of unsuitability could be furnished a GD or an HD.

15.  In November 1972, unsuitability was incorporated into AR 635-200, Enlisted Personnel, as chapter 13.  This chapter established the policy for separating members for inaptitude; character and behavior disorders; apathy; alcoholism; and homosexuality.  Under the provisions of this change to the regulations, individuals discharged for unsuitability would be furnished an HD or a GD.

16.  DA message 3022221Z March 1976 changed “character and behavior” disorders to “personality disorder;“ in October 1982, separation for personality disorder became chapter 5 in AR 635-200.  Under the provisions of this regulation members discharged for a personality disorder would be furnished an HD.

17.  On 1 October 1982 “unsuitability” was eliminated as a reason for discharge. 

18.  AR 635-200, currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority and criteria for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 3-7, provides, in pertinent part, that when a soldier is discharged before the expiration of his/her term of service for a reason for which an honorable discharge is discretionary, the following considerations apply.  Where there have been infractions of discipline, the extent thereof should be considered, as well as the seriousness of the offense(s).  A soldier will not necessarily be denied an honorable discharge solely by reason of a specific number of convictions by court-martial or actions under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Conviction by a general court-martial or by more than one special court-martial does not automatically rule out the possibility of awarding an honorable discharge.    

19.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15 year statute of limitations.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board noted that the applicant was diagnosed with a character defect and personality disorder and that the competent medical authority recommended that he be discharged under the provisions of AR 615-369 for unsuitability.  The worse characterization of service the applicant could have received under this regulation was a GD.

2.  The Board determined that the record contained no evidence of misconduct on the part of the applicant and that the record more clearly represented evidence for a discharge for unsuitability.

3.  Given the circumstances of this case, the applicant’s lack of a record of misconduct, his diagnosed personality disorder, and the changes in current regulations, the Board found that the discharge was inequitable.  Accordingly, the interest of justice would best be served by changing the applicant’s characterization of service to honorable and the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority.

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 17 February 1954.

2.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the authority and reason for separation was 
Secretarial Authority, chapter 5, AR 635-200.

BOARD VOTE:  

__FNE__  __TSK __  _WDB___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000044503	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001102	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19540217	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .615-368  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.9402.0000	
2.	144.8608.0000	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.