PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:           

	BOARD DATE:               16 July 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:      AR2002066329

	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. Beverly A. Young		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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 that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

3.  The applicant states that he has earned three college degrees, has a wonderful family and has a Christian ordination in the ministry since he was in the military.  

4.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), a supplemental letter, his General Discharge Certificate, his transcripts from the International Bible Institute and Seminary, his resume, and his certificate as an ordained minister.

5.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 August 1968 for a period three years.  He attended basic combat training at Fort Ord, California, and was further assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for advanced individual training (AIT).  Upon successful completion of AIT, the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 96C (Interrogator).  He was promoted to specialist four in January 1969.

6.  While the applicant was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, he was AWOL from 18 February 1969 to 5 March 1969.

7.  By a memorandum, dated 24 February 1969, the Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Police of Richmond, Virginia, notified the applicant’s commander that he had been arrested on 22 February 1969 and charged with carrying a concealed weapon.  The applicant was convicted in Police Court in Richmond, Virginia, on 24 February 1969, and fined $100.00 with $75.00 suspended.

8.  The applicant was AWOL again from 6 March 1969 to 11 March 1969 and from 23 March 1969 to 25 March 1969.

9.  On 25 March 1969, the applicant’s unit commander notified him of pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification, consulted with legal counsel, waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, and submitted statements in his own behalf.

10.  On 26 March 1969, the applicant underwent a psychiatric examination which indicated that he had a sociopathic personality disorder, manifested by chronic AWOL, impulsive behavior, and suicidal threats.  The applicant was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.  The psychiatrist cleared the applicant for any administrative action and recommended separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.
On 24 April 1969, the separation authority approved the separation and directed issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  

11.  The applicant was discharged on 2 May 1969 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, paragraph 6b(5), for unsuitability.  He completed 7 months and 21 days of total active military service with 25 days of lost time.  He underwent a separation medical examination prior to his discharge and was found qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111111.

12.  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.

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.  The applicant’s administrative separation on 2 May 1969 was accomplished in accordance with regulations then in effect.

2.  However, during processing for discharge, the applicant was diagnosed with a sociopathic personality disorder by a psychiatrist.

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.

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

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 2 May 1969.

BOARD VOTE:  

FNE____  DPH____  MHM____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Fred N. Eichorn_______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002066329	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020716	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19690502	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsuitability	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Schneider	
ISSUES         1.	144.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.