PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           11 April 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001063822

	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:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge 		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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.  He also requests that his rank and pay grade be changed to show private first class (PFC)/E-3 instead of private (PVT)/E-2.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was diagnosed with a bipolar disorder in 1992 by the Department of the Veterans Affairs (DVA).  He contends that this disorder is the reason for his discharge in 1969.  He states that he receives a pension from the DVA and that his discharge should have been more medical than administrative.  He also contends that his rank and pay grade should be PFC/E-3 instead of PVT/E-2 on his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).  In support of his application, he submits a letter of explanation. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted on 6 November 1967 for a period of 4 years.  He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training in military occupational specialty 16C (Hercules missile crewman).

5.  On 30 June 1968, the applicant was referred for a psychiatric evaluation because of a suicide attempt.  He was diagnosed with a passive aggressive personality disorder.  The psychiatrist recommended that the applicant not be returned to duty and that he be processed for separation. 

6.  On 6 August 1968, the applicant underwent a separation medical examination and was found qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111312. 

7.  On 31 August 1968, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 29 August 1968 to 
29 August 1968 (9 1/2 hours).  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2.  

8.  On 22 October 1968, the applicant was again referred for a psychiatric consultation.  However, the applicant was not rescheduled for a psychiatric evaluation at that time due to the findings and recommendations reported in his psychiatric evaluation conducted on 30 June 1968.  

9.  On 19 May 1969, another request for a psychiatric consultation was initiated.  However, the applicant’s records indicate that the psychiatrist who interviewed the applicant on 30 June 1968 determined that the psychiatric profile dictated in 1968 was still representative (i.e.) the applicant has a character disorder which will not benefit from therapy and that he should be processed for separation.   
 
10.  On 3 June 1969, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability.  He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived representation by counsel and elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.  He also acknowledged that he may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in the event a general discharge under honorable conditions were issued. 

11.  On 11 June 1969, the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation to discharge the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability.  He based his recommendation for separation on the applicant’s negative attitude towards persons with authority over him, his poor performance of duty and conduct and the recommendation by the psychiatrist that he be eliminated from the military service. 

12.  On 24 June 1969, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge.   

13.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions 
(a general discharge) on 27 June 1969 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability.  He had served 1 year, 7 months and 22 days of total active service.

14.  Item 5a (Grade, Rate or Rank) on the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows the entry, “PVT (P).”  Item 5b (Pay Grade) shows the entry, “E-2.”

15.  Item 33 (Appointments and Reductions) on the applicant’s DA Form 
20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows that he was reduced from PFC (E-3) to PVT (E-2) on 31 August 1968.  There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant was promoted to PFC/E-3 prior to his separation on 27 June 1969. 

16.  There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within its 15-year statute of limitations.

17.  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.

18.  Chapter 7 (Physical Profiling) of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) provides that the basic purpose of the physical profile serial system is to provide an index to the overall functional capacity of an individual and is used to assist the unit commander and personnel officer in their determination of what duty assignments the individual is capable of performing, and if reclassification action is warranted.  Four numerical designations (1-4) are used to reflect different levels of functional capacity in six factors (PULHES): P-physical capacity or stamina, U-upper extremities, L-lower extremities, H-hearing and ears, E-eyes, and S-psychiatric.  Numerical designator "1" under all factors indicates that an individual is considered to possess a high level of medical fitness and, consequently, is medically fit for any military assignment.  Numerical designators "2" and "3" indicate that an individual has a medical condition or physical defect which requires certain restrictions in assignment within which the individual is physically capable of performing military duty.  The individual should receive assignments commensurate with his or her functional capacity.    

19.  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.  These changes to regulation provided for an honorable discharge unless there was a “clear and demonstrable reason” to do otherwise in cases where a soldier diagnosed with a personality disorder was separated for unsuitability.  These changes also were made retroactive. 

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board considered the applicant’s contention that his discharge should have been more medical than administrative.  However, service medical records do not indicate any medical condition incurred while entitled to receive basic pay which was so severe as to render the applicant medically unfit for retention on active duty.  At the time of the separation physical examination, competent medical authority determined that the applicant was then medically qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111312.  Accordingly, the applicant was separated from active duty for unsuitability, not as a result of a medical condition.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation on 27 June 1969 was accomplished in accordance with regulations then in effect.

3.  However, the applicant also had a character and behavior disorder which diminished his ability to perform and work satisfactorily at any job for any length of time in the military.  Although his misconduct and behavior is not condoned, his offenses were not of a criminal nature.  

4.  In view of the foregoing, the general discharge issued to the applicant at the time of his 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. 

5.  Evidence of record shows the applicant was reduced to PVT (E-2) effective 
31 August 1968.  There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant was promoted to PFC (E-3) prior to his separation on 27 June 1969.  Therefore, items 5a (Grade, Rate or Rank) and 5b (Pay Grade) on the applicant’s DD Form 214 are correct as currently constituted.   

6.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records, but only 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 27 June 1969. 

2.  That the Department issue to him an Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 27 June 1969, in lieu of the general discharge of the same date now held by him.

3.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

MKP___  EJA_____  RTD_____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__Margaret K. Patterson__
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001063822	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020411	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19690627	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212 	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsuitability	
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.	102.0200	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.