PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           3 August 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030784

	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. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		Member	
	Mr. Calvin M. Folwer		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.

3.  The applicant states that he did not commit any crime, such as treason, spying, or desertion, but only had a lot of mental problems, and went AWOL a couple of times.  He states that he needs to work to support his family.  He was released from his last job because of his discharge.  

4.  On 1 June 1968, prior to his enlistment in the Army, the applicant completed a DA Form 3286, Statement of Enlistment.  In so doing, he indicated that he had been rejected for enlistment or induction in the Armed Forces in 1965 because he failed the mental examination. 

5.  The applicant enlisted in the Army for three years on 3 June 1968 and was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri for training.  He embarked on a series of AWOLs, the first from 5 August 1968 to 9 January 1969, and five more periods of AWOL thereafter, interspersed by four periods of confinement.

6.  He was arraigned, tried, and pled guilty to AWOL before a special court- martial which convened at Fort Sam Houston, Texas on 17 February 1969; and again before a special court-martial which convened at the same location on      30 September 1969 for a different AWOL period; and again before a special court-martial which convened at the same location on 4 February 1970 for another AWOL period.     

7.  A 28 May 1970 report of psychiatric evaluation shows that the applicant had no mental defects sufficient to warrant medical processing.  He was mentally responsible, both to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  He had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.  His condition was diagnosed as inadequate personality, chronic, severe; manifested by multiple AWOLs, a trip of training to Fort Riley, Kansas, very slow thinker and learner, sub-normal intelligence, and poor insight.

8.  On 2 June 1970 the applicant consulted with counsel and stated that he had been advised of the basis for the action to separate him from the Army for unfitness.  He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, and declined to submit statements in his own behalf.  He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge that he might receive.

9.  A 28 July 1970 report of medical examination indicated that the applicant was medically qualified for discharge with a physical profile serial of 1 1 1 1 1 1.  That report showed him as having an inadequate personality, chronic, severe.  In the report of medical history that he furnished for the examination, the applicant stated:  “I don’t feel too sick but I am too nervous, and I always keep forgetting everything.”  He also stated:  ”All the time I was in school I could not study.  Always missed days cause I had to work and had no father.”  He indicated on that report that he had frequent trouble sleeping, and was depressed or worried excessively.

10.  In a 5 August 1970 statement, the applicant’s commanding officer stated that he had interviewed the applicant several times, that the applicant had requested that he be sent to the stockade before he went AWOL again, that if his wife called him to go home, he would do so.  His commanding officer stated that the applicant had no knowledge of basic soldiering, military courtesy, did not respond to orders or directives efficiently, and had difficulty understanding the most simple instructions.  He stated that the applicant had been trying to get out of the service for two years.  He stated that his wife, a migrant worker, and his eleven month old child were his only concern.  That official stated that the applicant’s aptitude and special field test scores were good; however, the applicant stated that he took the Army examinations three times before he could pass them, and he received help from the recruiting NCO and others in order to do so.  That official recommended that the applicant be eliminated from the Army.

11.  On 18 August 1970 the applicant was evaluated by a field grade officer, who indicated that the applicant’s potential to perform as a solider, his ability to adjust to cadre and officers, his ability to mix with other soldiers, his ability to tolerate authority and discipline, his potential for rehabilitation, and his promotion/leadership potential, were all poor.  He stated that the applicant came from a very large family, whose father deserted when the applicant was very young.  The applicant was married and had one child.  The applicant was uncommunicative, had difficulty in expressing himself in English, since only Spanish was spoken in his home.  He was a high school drop out and had no trade, only working as a migrant worker prior to his entry on active duty.  He exhibited contempt for military authority and discipline and wanted out of the Army, and would do anything to get out. 

12.  On 21 August 1970 the applicant’s new commanding officer recommended that the applicant be required to appear before a board of officers to determine if he should be discharged from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.  That official cited the applicant’s history of AWOL, his confinements, and stated that the applicant had accumulated 567 days of bad time.  He stated that the applicant had been in a correctional holding detachment in an attempt to rehabilitate him, but to no avail.  He stated that the applicant had been counseled on five occasions.  He stated that the applicant was unfit for further service and recommended that the applicant receive an undesirable discharge.  

13.  Both the applicant’s battalion and brigade commanders recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged for unfitness, and that he receive an undesirable discharge.  The separation authority approved that recommendation.  The applicant was discharged under conditions other than honorable on 28 September 1970.  He had 5 months and 5 days of service, and almost 600 days of lost time.

14.  On 15 June 1999 the applicant was advised by the Chief of the Criminal Investigation Division of the Texas Board of Private Investigators and Private Security Agencies that his application was denied because of his dishonorable discharge from the military.

15.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel and provided, in pertinent part, that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally
considered appropriate.
 
16. Army Regulation 635-200, currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-13 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for personality disorder (not
amounting to a disability under Army Regulation 635-40), a deeply-ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior which interferes with the individual's ability to perform.  Prior counseling with a view to correcting deficiencies is mandatory.
The service of a soldier separated for a personality disorder will be characterized as honorable unless an entry level separation is required.  Characterization of service under honorable conditions may be awarded to a soldier who has been convicted of an offense by general court-martial or who has been convicted by more than one special court-martial in the current enlistment.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s undesirable discharge, although proper, in view of his numerous periods of AWOL, and his court-martial convictions, may have been overly harsh, under today’s standards.  The applicant obviously has a personality disorder, as evidenced by the 28 May 1970 report of psychiatrist evaluation.  Furthermore, the applicant had neither the education, discipline, nor aptitude for military service.  He himself indicated, prior to his enlistment in 1968, that he had failed a mental examination in 1965.  He also stated prior to his discharge that he had help in passing the aptitude tests in order for him to enlist in the Army.  The Board believes that the applicant’s enlistment in the Army was unfortunate.     

2.   The current guidance provides for an honorable discharge for a soldier separated because of a personality disorder.  This guidance represents an enhancement of the applicant’s rights and should be applied to his situation, and therefore, relief is warranted.  However, in view of the applicant’s three special court-martial convictions, the characterization of his service should be under honorable conditions, which the applicant has requested. 

3.  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 applicant was discharged from the Army on                          28 September 1970 because of a personality disorder, and that the characterization of his service be under honorable conditions. 

BOARD VOTE:  

___esc__  ___jns__  ___cmf__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_____John N. Slone______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030784	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000803	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.