BOARD DATE: 3 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002327 BOARD VOTE: ____x_____ ___x____ ____x____ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 3 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002327 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant amendment of the ABCMR's decision in Docket Number AC84-4933C, dated 30 September 1998. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the applicant's DD Form 214 to show the characterization of service as general, under honorable conditions. ____________x_____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. BOARD DATE: 3 October 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002327 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests reconsideration of his previous request to upgrade his undesirable discharge to a general discharge under honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states he was diagnosed with paranoid type schizophrenia after being discharged. A psychiatrist was not available so he was not given medication to help him. If his mental illness had been treated with medication he believes his behavior would have been controlled. 3. The applicant provides * Standard Form (SF) 600 (A Chronological Record of Medical Care), dated 9 September 1968 * letter, dated 15 April 2010, from Dr. W, psychiatrist, Hinds Behavioral Health Services, Jackson, MS * correspondence between the applicant and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) * correspondence with his Congressional representative CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AC84-04933C on 30 September 1998. 2. On 12 February 1968, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States. On 19 February 1968, he was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 1st Training Brigade, U.S. Army Training Center (USATC), Infantry Fort Benning, GA. He did not complete basic combat training. He was absent without leave (AWOL) from 24 - 26 February 1968. 3. On 6 June 1968, the applicant was tried before a special court-martial. a. He pled guilty and was found guilty of: * being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 30 March 1968 to on or about 10 April 1968 * being AWOL from on or about 13 April 1968 to on or about 20 May 1968 * willfully disobeying a lawful order from noncommissioned officer (NCO) b. His sentence consisted of confinement at hard labor for 6 months and forfeiture of $63 per month for 6 months. No previous convictions were considered. c. On 12 June 1968, the convening authority approved the sentence. The applicant was to be confined to the Post Stockade, Fort Benning, GA 4. On 18 July 1968, the applicant was evaluated by Major R, a Medical Corps officer, at the Mental Hygiene Consultation Service, Fort Benning, GA. a. The examiner found the applicant was and is mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from and to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings. b. There were no disqualifying mental defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels. c. It was noted that a psychiatrist was not "available" for the psychiatric evaluation of the applicant. d. The applicant was cleared for separation from the service under administrative action as deemed appropriate by his command. 5. On 15 August 1968, a report of conduct from a correctional officer, Post Stockade, Fort Benning, stated the applicant was confined on 20 May 1968 and had been disciplined on: * 22 May 1968 - placed in disciplinary segregation/restricted diet for refusing to obey an order * 5 August 1968 - placed in disciplinary segregation/restricted diet for refusing to obey an order 6. On 30 August 1968, his commander notified him that he was being recommended for separation from the service for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability). The commander advised the applicant of his right to present his case before a board of officers, submit any statements in his behalf, and to be represented by military counsel appointed by the convening authority, military counsel of his own choice, provided the requested counsel is reasonably available or civilian counsel at his own expense. 7. On 5 September 1968, the applicant submitted a statement acknowledging that he had been advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness. a. The applicant waived consideration by a board of officers and waived a personal appearance. The applicant stated that he was not submitting statements in his own behalf and that he waived counsel. b. The applicant acknowledged that, as the result of issuance of a discharge under honorable conditions, he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life. c. The applicant further acknowledged that, as the result of issuance of a discharge under conditions other than honorable, he may be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both federal and state laws and that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life. 8. A SF 600, dated 9 September 1968, submitted by the applicant, shows treatment for an apparent temper tantrum after tinted glasses were taken from him. He reportedly screamed and fought on the floor and then was "unconscious." He refused to speak and sobbed but was in no distress. He was treated and returned back to the stockade. 9. On 9 September 1968, the applicant's commander recommended he be discharged before the expiration of his term of service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. a. Discharge was recommended because of unfitness (frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities) and it was recommended that an Undesirable Discharge Certificate be furnished. b. The commander did not consider it appropriate to recommend other disposition because as long as the applicant had been a member of the unit, he had not been able to cooperate with other military personnel and had continued to go AWOL and stay in trouble. c. The applicant's intermediate commanders recommended approval and that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 10. On 18 October 1968, a report of conduct from a correctional officer, Post Stockade, Fort Benning stated the applicant was confined on 20 May 1968 and had been disciplined on: * 22 May 1968 - indefinite disciplinary segregation for refusing to obey an order * 5 August 1968 - indefinite disciplinary segregation for refusing to obey an order * 25 September 1968 - indefinite disciplinary segregation for assaulting an NCO 11. On 22 October 1968, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's discharge and directed an Undesirable Discharge Certificate be issued. 12. On 29 October 1968, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unfitness - frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. He completed 1 month and 15 days of net active service that was characterized as under other than honorable conditions. He had 213 days of time lost. He was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 13. The applicant was seen in the Jackson Mental Health Center, Jackson, MS by Dr. B, a psychiatrist. Dr. B's impression was paranoid schizophrenia verses schizoaffective disorder residual. 14. Dr. P, a psychiatrist at the Jackson Mental Health Center treated the applicant from 13 May 1999 to 22 April 2004. His problem was depression with paranoid ideation. He had follow-ups approximately every 3 months. On 12 September 2000, the doctor indicated his depression and paranoid ideas were in remission. 14. Dr. G, a psychiatrist at the Hinds Behavioral Health Services, Jackson, MS, treated the applicant for paranoid schizophrenia from 9 August 2004 to 21 March 2007 with follow-ups every 3 months. On 24 November 2004, the doctor noted the applicant had no active hallucinations or delusions, homicidal or suicidal ideation. He seemed to be stable. 15. Dr. W, a psychiatrist at Hinds Behavioral Health Services, Jackson, MS, treated the applicant for paranoid type schizophrenia from 13 June 2007 to 16 June 2008, with follow-ups every 3 months. 16. On 1 March 2017, an advisory opinion was received from an Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor/Psychologist, who concluded there was a nexus between the applicant's misconduct and his mental health. a. There were no records in AHLTA or the Joint Legacy Viewer systems. The applicant's supplied evidence submitted with his application and records supplied in the file were reviewed. b. The applicant's Armed Forces Qualification Test score of 11 was a very low score placing him mental group IV. It is possible he did not apply himself during the exam, especially as he is on record as having been opposed to the draft and the war in Vietnam. c. Eccentric behavior was exhibited during his service when he had a "tantrum" after tinted glasses were taken from him. He fought their seizure from the floor and apparently stopped the fight by feigning unconsciousness. d. His AWOLs began almost as soon as his basic training began. He was convicted of these AWOLs and disobeying a lawful order and he served 162 days of a 6-month sentence to confinement. e. It is now beyond any doubt the applicant has schizophrenia and has been in treatment for schizophrenia for most of his adult life. In the advisor's clinical judgment, he thinks his impairment is evident in several of the documents he submitted in support of his evidence and that it would not be difficult to distinguish what the applicant wrote that has been submitted from material written on his behalf. f. The difficulty at hand is that the Army appears to have judged the applicant at the time of his discharge as a draft resister, rather than as a person developing a psychotic illness. His response to having his tinted glasses taken from him was, in light of his subsequent history, a clear tell of his mental status at the time. g. Although schizophrenia is far from the only cause of extreme or odd political beliefs, it is certainly not an unusual part of the clinical presentation, as is the evident inability to manage any adjustment demands of Army life. Further, his difficulties continued well after any advantage of feigning illness had ceased to exist. The age for him beginning to show unequivocal symptoms of his schizophrenia (20 at the time his troubles began and 21 when his time in the Army ended) is also consistent with his post-discharge clinical picture. h. The applicant almost certainly had a condition that existed prior to service as the cause of his misconduct. The applicant's contentions that his condition emerged or has persisted as a result of not receiving prompt psychiatric treatment with the resources available in 1968 is without merit. The advisor recommended mitigation of his misconduct based on his paranoid schizophrenia. i. The advisor concluded the applicant did meet medical retention standards that were applicable to his era of service; however, this is based on a presumption of regularity and the advisor in fact was doubtful the applicant met the standards for accession. The applicant's mental health conditions were considered at the time of his discharge from the Army. A review of available documentation did discover evidence of a mental health consideration that bears on the character of the discharge in this case. A nexus between the applicant's misconduct and his mental health was discovered. 17. On 3 March 2017, the applicant was provided a copy of the advisory for the opportunity for him to submit any comments or rebuttal. The applicant did not provide any additional comments. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations, Discharge, Unfitness and Unsuitability), in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability. This regulation provided that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness. An individual discharged for unfitness was furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate, General Discharge Certificate, or an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 2. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel. A general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. DISCUSSION: 1. At the time the applicant received a court-martial sentence of 6 months confinement he only had 1 month and 6 days of net active service and he had not completed basic combat training. His total net active service was 1 month and 15 days. He had 213 days of time lost, which included confinement. 2. The applicant's discharge processing was administratively correct and in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. The records contain no evidence of procedural or other errors that would have jeopardized his rights. 3. The advising psychologist concluded there was a nexus between the applicant's misconduct and his mental health. He stated the Army appeared to have judged the applicant at the time of his discharge as a draft resister, rather than as a person developing a psychotic illness. He recommended mitigation of his misconduct based on his paranoid schizophrenia. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160002327 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160002327 7 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2