MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:             23 February 2000                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999032879

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Jesse B. Strickland		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A -  Application for correction of military 
                             records
	Exhibit B -  Military Personnel Records (including
	                  advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that the narrative reason for his discharge be changed and he be issued a new separation document that does not include the narrative reason “character and behavior disorder”.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the upgrade granted to his characterization of his service, granted by this Board, resulted in his receiving a separation document that is more negative than the one he previously held.  He claims that placing the narrative reason for separation “Character and Behavior Disorder” on the new DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) has resulted in his having a more negative document now, than he held previously.  He contends that he will never be able to use his new DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to obtain employment, and that no one would hire someone they think is crazy, as is implied in the document issued to him.  He goes on to indicate that at least the DD Form 214 he held previously did not contain derogatory remarks and he could use a blacked out portion to apply for employment.  He contends that the new separation document with the honorable characterization of service is more negative then his earlier general, under honorable conditions separation document and would like this corrected. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

On 30 October 1969, he entered the Regular Army for 4 years, the period of service under review.  At the time of this enlistment the applicant had completed 1 year, 10 months, and 8 days of honorable active military service.  During his prior period of service in the Army of the United States (AUS), as an inductee, he had attained the rank of specialist/E-4; completed a combat tour in Vietnam; earned the National Defense Service Medal; the Vietnam Service Medal; the Vietnam Campaign Medal; the Bronze Star Medal; the Army Commendation Medal; the Combat Medical Badge; the Purple Heart; and the Soldiers Medal. 

Upon reentering the Army, the applicant was assigned to overseas duty in Italy. His record for the period of service under review is not distinctive; however, it does include a disciplinary record which includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on two separate occasions. 

On 7 April 1970, the applicant accepted NJP for disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer.  His punishment for this offense included a forfeiture of $25.00 and 7 days of extra duty.  On 4 August 1970, he accepted NJP for being AWOL from 29 to 31 July 1970.  The resultant punishment was a reduction in rank to private first class/E-3. 

On 3 June 1970 the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation which resulted in a diagnosis that concluded that he suffered from an emotionally unstable personality, manifested by inappropriate moods and responses, repetitive maladjustment patterns, grandiosity, and anxiety manifestations.  Comments in support of this diagnosis indicated that his character was essentially that of an individual who expresses a good deal of immaturity and who is unable to stand delays.  The psychiatrist’s findings stated that the applicant was an individual with a chronic character and behavior disorder with whom attempts at rehabilitation have clearly failed to produce an acceptable adjustment pattern to the service.  In the estimation of the evaluator, further rehabilitation efforts would be futile.  The psychiatric recommendation was that the applicant be separated from the service under the provisions of AR 635-212, for unsuitability, as soon as possible to avoid further embarrassing situations.

On 8 September 1970 the applicant’s unit commander, based on the situation and recommendations outlined above, initiated separation action, under the provisions of AR 635-212 for unsuitability.  The commander cited the applicant’s progressively worse efficiency and his failure to respond to counseling or disciplinary action.

The applicant acknowledged that he had been notified by his commanding officer that his discharge was being recommended and completed his election of rights. In this document, the applicant waived his right to the following:  military counsel; a hearing before a board of officers; and he elected not to submit a rebuttal statement in his own behalf.

On 28 September 1970, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge for unsuitability, under the provisions of AR 635-212 
(SPN 264-Character and Behavior Disorder), and directed he be issued a GD.  

Accordingly, on 1 October 1970, the applicant was discharged after completing 11 months of his current enlistment and a total of 3 years and 7 days of active military service.

On 23 December 1998, this Board upgraded the characterization of the applicant’s discharge to honorable based current standards, that were outlined in Department of the Army message # 302221Z, March 1976, which changed “character and behavior disorder” to “personality disorder”; DOD Directive 1332.28, which established uniform policies, procedures, and standards for the review of discharges or dismissals under Title 10, United States Code, Section 1553; and Paragraph 5-13, Army Regulation 635-200, which contains the current Army policy for separating soldiers by reason of personality disorder, and mandates that their service be characterized as honorable.  

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  While the Board understands the applicant’s desire to change the narrative reason for his discharge, in order to pursue employment opportunities, this alone does not provide a basis for relief.  The applicant has failed to provide any evidence or argument that would call into question the validity of the original reason for his discharge.  

2.  After carefully examining the evidence of record, the Board found that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation applicable at the time and that the reason for discharge is consistent with the with the applicant's overall record of military service.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the Board concluded that that the narrative reason for separation was proper and equitable at the time it was issued, and that it correctly reflects the applicant’s record of active service. 

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__rjo___    __eb___     __rjw___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999032879	
SUFFIX		
RECON	1998/12/23	
DATE BOARDED	2000/02/23	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1970/10/01	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	Character and Behavior Disorder 	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.