MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           7 August 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001057010

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

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Michael L. Engle		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was discharged for medical reasons and not for disciplinary actions.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He was inducted into the Army on 9 May 1968 for 2 years and was assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington, for basic combat training.

The applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) on 4 different occasions and accumulated over 223 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

The applicant was twice convicted by special court-martial for AWOL.  His sentences included forfeitures and confinements at hard labor.

On 15 April 1969, the applicant’s commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability.  The commander cited as justification his extensive lost time and record of punishment.  The applicant waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, and elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.

On 16 April 1969, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation.  He was diagnosed as having a paranoid personality, chronic, moderate, manifested by paranoid feelings.  The psychiatrist presumed that the longstanding character and behavior disorder would tend to exist permanently and recommended that the applicant be administratively separated.

On 17 April 1969, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 21 April 1969, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability.  He had completed 1 month and 5 days of creditable active service

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

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 upon 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 upon 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 a 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.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reason therefor were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  Even though the applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder, it is not sufficient to overcome the applicant’s misconduct.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__MKP   _  __TBR __  __RKS__  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057010	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/08/07	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19690421	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A40.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.