PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:

	BOARD DATE:            14 December 2000  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000046346

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. Richard t. Dunbar		Member	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry		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, in effect, disability separation or retirement.  He states that an Army psychiatrist found that he had an "emotionally unstable personality" which led to his discharge. 

3.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant entered active duty on 
17 October 1966.  He successfully completed basic training and in January 1967 was assigned to Fort Jackson, South Carolina for advanced individual training.  

4.  On 8 February 1967 the applicant was seen by a mental health official who concluded the applicant did not have any mental defects sufficient to warrant separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 (disability separation and retirement).  The official concluded that the applicant "had a character or behavior disorder classified as emotionally unstable personality, chronic, severe" which existed prior to his entry on active duty.

5.  On 9 February 1967 the applicant's commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant from active duty for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.  His commander noted the applicant's repeated sick call, and inability to react to any training given him as the basis for the recommendation and recommended the applicant receive a general discharge.  The commander also stated that it was not feasible to separate the applicant for unsuitability "because of his repeated incidents of sick call and complaints which are not backed up by a doctor's report."  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation and waived his attendant rights.  The recommendation was approved and on 10 March 1967 the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions.

6.  During the applicant’s brief military service he was punished one time under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to obey a lawful command to clean up his area.

7.  Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability. It provided, in pertinent part, for the discharge due to unsuitability of those individuals with character and behavior disorders and disorders of intelligence as determined by medical authority.  When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record. An individual was subject to separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming drugs or marijuana; an established pattern of shirking; and an established pattern of dishonorable failure to pay just debts or to contribute adequate support to dependents (including failure to comply with orders, decrees or judgements).  When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

8.  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 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 upgrade 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 disorder 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.

9.  Army Regulation 40-501, which establishes the standards of medical fitness for retention purposes, notes that while personality disorders may render an individual administratively unfit they are not a basis for disability retirement or separation.  Interference with performance of effective duty in association with a personality disorder is dealt with through appropriate administrative channels and not medical channels.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record clearly indicates that the applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder and as such should have been discharged for unsuitability under Army Regulation 635-212 and not for unfitness.  In view of this fact the 1978 Nelson memorandum and the pertinent portion of the current Army Regulation 635-200 mandates an honorable characterization of service for a soldier separated for a personality disorder.  As such, this policy represents an enhancement of the applicant’s rights, and therefore, the applicant’s discharge should be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The evidence of record indicates he did not have any medically unfitting disability that required physical disability processing.  Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.

3.  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 characterization of service on 10 March 1967.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__jh____  ____rtd_  ___hof__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000046346	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001214	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	Grant	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.