PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           8 February 2001   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000048244

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		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 award of the Purple Heart.

3.  The applicant states that he should have been awarded the Purple Heart for a war-time left foot injury.  He contends that his claim is supported by VA documentation dated 8 February 1960.  In support of his application, he submits VA documentation dated 8 February 1960 and a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States).

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted on 31 May 1951.  He served as a rifleman in Germany from 19 November 1951 to 26 April 1954 and was honorably discharged on 13 May 1954.  He entered active duty again on 6 August 1956 and was honorably discharged on 21 May 1958.  He immediately reenlisted on 22 May 1958 for a period of 6 years.  On 24 September 1959 the applicant was discharged with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability (character and behavior disorders).

5.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 with an effective date of 13 May 1954, which was authenticated in his own hand, does not show the Purple Heart as an authorized award.  There are no orders in the applicant’s records which show that he was awarded the Purple Heart.  There is no evidence in the applicant’s records which show that he was wounded as a result of hostile action.

6.  Item 29 (Wounds Received as a Result of Action with Enemy Forces) on the DD Form 214 shows “NA” [not applicable].  Section 7 (Combat Record) and Section 8 (Wounds Received Through Enemy Action) on the applicant’s DD Form 230 (Service Record) are blank. 

7.  The applicant provided VA documentation, dated 8 February 1960, which shows he was rated zero percent for a left foot injury during war service.  However, his medical records contain a Clinical Abstract, dated 20 May 1952, which shows the entry “MEDICAL HISTORY:  Soldier received an injury to left foot during basic training in June 1951 when tank track dropped on his foot.  Two months later he began having pain and swelling on bottom of his foot after walking.  This has continued to the present time.” 

8.  Medical evidence of record shows the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation on 21 July 1959 and was diagnosed with a passive-dependency reaction, chronic, severe.  AE Form 3092 (Certificate of Medical Examination for Separation), dated 5 August 1959, shows that competent medical authority 
recommended discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 due to the applicant’s passive dependent personality, chronic, severe. 

9.  Records show the applicant’s elimination under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 was based on his repeated visits to various medical facilities which was detrimental to his duty performance and his indifferent attitude toward his superior officers and noncommissioned officers.  In the recommendation for elimination, dated 31 August 1959, the applicant’s unit commander stated that “Subject EM has not been a disciplinary problem during his tour of action”. 

10.  The applicant’s DD Form 789 (Unit Punishment Record) which covers his last enlistment is blank.  

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained as a result of hostile action.  Substantiating evidence must be provided to verify that the wound was the result of hostile action, the wound must have required treatment, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.

12.  Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and prescribed procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsuitability.  Action was to be taken to discharge an individual for unsuitability when, in the commander's opinion, it was clearly established that: the individual was unlikely to develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier or the individual's psychiatric or physical condition was such as to not warrant discharge for disability.  Unsuitability included inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, disorders of intelligence and transient personality disorders due to acute or special stress, apathy, defective attitude, and inability to expend effort constructively, enuresis, chronic alcoholism, and homosexuality.  Evaluation by a medical officer was required and, when psychiatric indications are involved, the medical officer must be a psychiatrist, if one was available.  A general or honorable discharge was considered appropriate.    

13.  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. 

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no evidence of record, and the applicant has provided no evidence, which shows that he was awarded the Purple Heart or that he was wounded or treated for wounds as a result of hostile action.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to award of the Purple Heart.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation on 24 September 1959 was accomplished in accordance with regulations then in effect.  However, he also had a character and behavior disorder which diminished his ability to perform and work satisfactorily at any job for any length of time in the military.  Although his behavior is not condoned, his offenses were not of a criminal nature.  

3.  In view of the foregoing, it appears that the above-mentioned memorandums should be applied to his case and his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.

4.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct 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 24 September 1959.

2.  That the Department issue to him an Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 24 September 1959, in lieu of the general discharge of the same date now held by him.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

JHL____  GDP_____  DPH____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		JoAnn H. Langston____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR200048244	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010208	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19590924	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-209  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsuitability (character and behavior disorders)	
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.0015	
2.	110.0200	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.