PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           16 July 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002067588

	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:

	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 her general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that she was a young inexperienced girl and not well prepared for military service.  She contends that in retrospect she sees that she should have made more of an effort.  She claims that since her discharge she has been a good citizen and has never been in criminal trouble.  In support of her application, she submits a letter of explanation, dated 
30 November 2001; and a copy of her DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge).
 
4.  The applicant’s military records show that she enlisted on 27 September 1968 for a period of 3 years.  She successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training and was transferred to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, for duty as a clerk typist.  

5.  On 6 June 1969, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to her appointed place of duty.  Her punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

6.  On 3 July 1969, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 13 June 1969 to 17 June 1969 and from 20 June 1969 to 24 June 1969; and disobeying two lawful orders from her superior commissioned officer.  She was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 4 months, to forfeit $80 pay per month for 6 months, and to be reduced to the grade of E-1.  On 23 July 1969, the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as provides for forfeiture of $80 pay per month for 6 months and reduction to E-1.         

7.  On 7 July 1969, the applicant underwent a neuropsychiatric evaluation and was diagnosed with a passive-aggressive personality, passive-aggressive type.  The psychiatrist recommended separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.

8.  On 8 July 1969, the applicant was notified of her pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability.  The unit commander based her recommendation for separation on the applicant’s apathy, defective attitudes and inability to expend effort constructively.  

9.  On 24 July 1969, after consulting with counsel, the applicant waived consideration of her case by a board of officers, waived representation by counsel and elected not to make a statement in her own behalf.  She also acknowledged that she may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in the event a general discharge under honorable conditions were issued. 

10.  On 14 August 1969, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability due to character and behavior disorders and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge.   

11.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions 
(a general discharge) on 19 August 1969 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability due to character and behavior disorders.  She had served 10 months and 15 days of total active service with 8 days lost due to AWOL.

12.  On 6 January 1971 and on 16 June 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s requests for a discharge upgrade to honorable.  
 
13.  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.

14.  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 19 August 1969 was accomplished in accordance with regulations then in effect.

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

3.  In view of the foregoing, the general discharge issued to the applicant at the time of her separation is inconsistent with the standards for discharge for unsuitability which became effective in June 1976.  Since these new standards retroactively authorized an honorable discharge in cases where soldiers diagnosed with a personality disorder were separated for unsuitability, the applicant in this case should receive an honorable discharge consistent with these standards. 

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 19 August 1969. 

2.  That the Department issue to her an Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 19 August 1969, in lieu of the general discharge of the same date now held by her.

BOARD VOTE:  

FNE___  MHM____  DPH_____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__Fred N. Eichorn____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067588	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020716	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19690819	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsuitability due to character and behavior disorders	
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.