PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            9 November 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000044553

	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. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Orville W. Troesch Jr. 		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Lutz 		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, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to honorable.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he never saw or was treated by any Army medical staff; that he was released from service because he could not adjust to military life, and that since his discharge from the Army he has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (A. D. D.).

4.  The applicant’s military records show that on 4 November 1971, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  At the time of enlistment the applicant was 17 years old and had completed only 7 years of formal schooling.

5.  The applicant was assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington for basic combat training (BCT).  

6.  On 14 January 1972, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to obey a lawful order issued by a sergeant.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of 5 days pay.

7.  On 17 January 1972, the applicant refused to cooperate with any company cadre, and as a result of this, he was referred to the Mental Hygiene Clinic.

8.  On 18 January 1972, the results of the applicant’s psychiatric evaluation diagnosed him with an immature personality with passive aggressive characteristics that were chronic and severe.  The personality disorder was manifested by passive obstructionism, impulsivity, and unwillingness to adjust to the military resulting in one NJP and numerous disciplinary actions, intentional inefficiency, resentment of authority figures, and low frustration tolerance.  

9.  The psychiatrist indicated that the applicant’s condition was part of a character and behavior disorder due to deficiencies in emotional and personality development of such a degree as to seriously impair his function in the military service, that this condition would exist permanently, and that it existed prior to service.

10.  On 16 February 1972, the commanding officer initiated separation action under the provisions of paragraph 6b(2), Army Regulation (AR) 635-212 by reason of unsuitability.

11.  On 17 February 1972, the applicant acknowledged he had been advised by counsel of the contemplated separation action under the provisions of paragraph 6b(2), AR 635-212.  The applicant waived a board of officers and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

12.  On 23 February 1972 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge with the issuance of a GD.  Accordingly, on 29 February 1972, he was discharged after completing 3 months and 27 days of his 3-year enlistment.

13.  There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.

14.  Department of the Army message, #302221Z, March 1976, changed “character and behavior disorder” to “personality disorder”.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200, currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-13 provides, in part, when separation is because of a personality disorder, the service of the soldier separated per this paragraph will be characterized as honorable unless an entry level separation is required under chapter 3, section III.  Characterization of service under honorable conditions may be awarded to a soldier who has been convicted of an offense by general court-martial or who has been convicted by more than one special court-martial in the current enlisted period of obligated service, or any extension thereof.

16.  Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 1332.28, Standards, establishes uniform policies, procedures, and standards for the review of discharges or dismissals under Title 10, United States Code, section 1553, and applies to the Office of the Secretary of the Defense and the Military Departments.  Section 4 of that Directive sets forth the objectives for discharge review.  It provides that a discharge shall be deemed proper unless it is determined that a change in policy by the military service of which the applicant was a member, made expressly retroactive to the type of discharge under consideration, requires a change in the discharge.  Furthermore, a discharge shall be deemed to be equitable unless there is substantial doubt that the applicant would have received the same discharge if relevant current policies and procedures had been available to the applicant at the time the discharge was considered.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention, in effect, that he was discharged for his inability to adjust to military service and that he was not treated by Army medical staff.  Contrary to the applicant’s assessment, the evidence of record shows that the applicant was evaluated by Army medical staff and diagnosed with a personality disorder.

2.  The evidence of record further shows that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The characterization of the applicant’s discharge was determined by the regulation in effect at the time.
3.  The available records support that the applicant was discharged due to a personality disorder that existed prior to service and resulted in his inability to adjust.

4.  Had the ADRB reviewed the applicant’s discharge under DOD Directive 1332.28, it is reasonable to presume that his discharge would have been upgraded based on the application of the current regulation for discharge because of a personality disorder.

5.  Accordingly, the Board concludes that under current regulation the applicant’s service would be characterized as fully honorable.  Therefore, the Board concludes that it would be proper and just to upgrade the applicant’s general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable.

6.  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 29 February 1972.

2.  That the Department of the Army issue to the individual concerned an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the United States Army, dated 29 February 1972, in lieu of the general, under honorable conditions discharge of the same date now held by him.

BOARD VOTE:  
__jlp____  __owt___  __bjl____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		   __Jennifer L. Prater__
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000044553	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001109	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720229	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	Personality Disorder	
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.8600		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.