PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            8 November 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001059110

	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	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		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 discharge be upgraded to honorable.

3.  The applicant states that he was discharged due to psychiatric reasons but has since been diagnosed with a bi-polar disorder for manic depression.  He goes on to state that he has included two letters from his psychiatrist that have been submitted to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for disability (documents did not arrive with application).  He continues by stating that his psychiatrist contends that due to his family history and symptoms that began in his teen years, his separation was the result of a mental illness.  He further states that not only did the Army Mental Health officials fail to diagnose his illness at the time, they supported his discharge under honorable conditions because of his drug related conduct.  Given his history of mental illness he now insists that his discharge be upgraded to honorable. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in Minneapolis, Minnesota on 9 July 1968 for a period of 3 years and training as an armor crewman.  He completed his basic training at Fort Campbell, Kentucky and was transferred to Fort Knox, Kentucky to undergo his advanced individual training (AIT) as an armor crewman.

5.  While at Fort Knox he went absent without leave (AWOL) from 3 February to 8 February 1969.  Nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him on 13 February 1969 and his punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of pay.  He was transferred to Korea on 24 March 1969.

6.  The complete facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s administrative discharge are not present in the available records.  However, the available records show that on 4 April 1970 the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation that the applicant suffered a seizure while sitting in a classroom and after referral to Mental Hygiene, it was determined that he was suffering the effects of flashbacks from lysergic acid (LSD).  

7.  In a fact sheet prepared by the Division Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) for the commanding general (approval authority), the SJA indicated that the applicant had admitted to a continuing history of drug use, particularly LSD, that he expressed no intent to stop using drugs but that he was afraid he might hurt someone while on a “bad trip”.  He went on to state that while his attitude is described as resentful, he had no record of anything more than minor disciplinary infractions.  The Division psychiatrist recommended immediate separation due to his severe personality disorder and advised the applicant to seek psychiatric help when he returned to the United States.

8.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation on 8 May 1970 and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

9.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions on 21 May 1970, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability based on a character and behavior disorder.  He had served 1 year, 10 months and 8 days of total active service and had 5 days of lost time due to AWOL.

10.  There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

11. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  It provided, in pertinent part, that  individuals involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unsuitability.  Although a general discharge was authorized, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. 

12.  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 a 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 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 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.  The evidence of records shows that the applicant’s administrative separation on 21 May 1970 was accomplished in accordance with regulations then in effect.

2.  While the applicant’s behavior (drug use) is not condoned by the Board, the general discharge appears to be unduly harsh considering that the applicant had a long- standing basic character and behavior disorder which in all likelihood existed prior to entering the Army and may tend to exist permanently. 

3.  Consequently, it appears that the above mentioned memorandums should be applied to this case and that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.

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 21 May 1970.

2.  That the Department issue to him an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 21 May 1970, in lieu of the general discharge of the same date held by him.

BOARD VOTE:  

___fe ___  ___be___  __kf ____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_____Fred N. Eichorn____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001059110	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/11/08	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1970/05/21	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212 .c&b DISORDER	
DISCHARGE REASON	C&B DISORDER 	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  557	144.4200/A42.00 PERS DISORDER	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.