PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            20 February 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002073309

	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:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		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 has provided no evidence or argument in support of his application. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he initially enlisted on 6 July 1956 and served until he was honorably released from active duty on 3 July 1959, due to the expiration of his term of service.  He again enlisted on 7 February 1962 for a period of 3 years in the pay grade of E-2.  He was assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma and was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 20 February 1962.  On 18 June 1962, he was transferred to Italy.

5.  On 4 February 1963, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, for unsuitability due to a diagnosed character and behavior disorder.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation that the applicant had been diagnosed by a psychiatrist as having a severe character disorder of emotional unstable personality.  He also stated that the applicant quite often would become very nervous and start crying whenever he thought of his wife and children and that his emotional state was such that he could not accomplish even the simplest task.

6.  The applicant acknowledged that he had been counseled by the psychiatrist, chaplain and commander and that he understood the basis for the recommendation for separation.  He waived all of his rights and indicated that he understood the consequences of receiving a general discharge.  He also declined the opportunity to consult with counsel.

7.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation on 15 February 1963 and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

8.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 28 March 1963, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, due to a character and behavior disorder.  He had served 1 year, 1 month and 22 days of active service during his current enlistment.

9.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.  Additionally, a review of the applicant’s records failed to reveal any record of disciplinary action being taken against the applicant during his service.

10.  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 28 March 1963 was accomplished in accordance with regulations then in effect.

2.  However, 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 28 March 1963.

2.  That the Department issued to him an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 28 March 1963, in lieu of the general discharge of the same date held by him.

BOARD VOTE:  

___alr___  ___jhl ___  __le ____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Joann H. Langston____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002073309	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/02/20	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1963/03/28	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-209	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNSUIT/C&B DISORDER	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  557	144.4200/A42.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.