PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            16 July 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001064514

	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:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		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 states that he wants his discharge upgraded to honorable and for it to reflect the real situation at the time of his discharge.  He goes on to state that the circumstances he had to endure at the time have not been revealed, in that he was refused medical treatment.  He goes on to state that he endured terrible treatment and humiliation that was the result of his commander not liking him and as a result presented incorrect and inflammatory information.  He also states that his good name should be cleared by the people who took it and that he should receive a new report of separation (DD Form 214).  In support of his application he submits a copy of a Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision dated 20 February 2001.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in Chicago, Illinois on 19 May 1953, for a period of 3 years and training as a helicopter repairman.  He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Fort Carson, Colorado on 27 December 1953. 

5.  On 1 March 1954, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation after having made a second suicidal gesture.  His first gesture consisted of ingesting shaving lotion, hair lotion and shoe polish.  His second gesture consisted of his attempting to cut his wrists.  After undergoing psychological testing, the examining psychiatrist opined that he was mentally responsible for his acts, and that he possessed the mental capacity to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  His verbatim diagnosis, diagnosed the applicant as suffering from emotional instability reaction, chronic, severe, manifested by futile suicidal gestures, emotional outbursts, sado-masochistic trends, predisposition, lifelong, patient was referred to a psychiatrist in high school; stress, interpersonal difficulties, impairment for military duty, severe.  He recommended that the applicant be discharged for unsuitability under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-369. 

6.  On 25 March 1954, the applicant’s commander submitted a request to convene a board of officers to determine if the applicant should be discharged for unsuitability.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation, that the applicant did not possess the emotional stability for continued service as evidenced by his suicidal gestures and emotional outbursts.  The applicant declined his right to consult and/or be represented by counsel.

7.  A board of officers convened on 5 April 1954 with the applicant representing himself and making no challenges to any of the board members when afforded the opportunity.  The first witness called was a sergeant who testified that the applicant was not a good soldier but in fact a very poor soldier.  He further indicated that the applicant had bad discipline and poor appearance, would not keep his area clean and had gotten drunk and broken windows out of the barracks.

8.  The applicant testified in his own behalf, whereas he asserted that he believed that although he had completed training as an aircraft mechanic, he did not think he had accomplished anything or that it had helped him.  He indicated that while he was in training he had been in a couple of fights and had company punishment imposed against him.  He also indicated that he did not like the Army, that he was nervous, that he drank too much and that he did not know what he would do when he got out of the Army.

9.  He called a Noncommissioned Officer to testify in his behalf and the NCO rated him as a fair soldier who would do what he was told, but nothing more.

10.  After reviewing all of the evidence in his case, to include the psychiatric evaluation, the board found that the applicant was unfit for further military service by reason of a character and behavior disorder.  The board recommended that he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-369 for unsuitability.

11.  The appropriate authority approved the findings and recommendations of the board on 16 April 1954 and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

12.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 22 April 1954, under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-369, for unsuitability.  He had served 11 months and 4 days of total active service.

13.  There is no indication 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.  However, he did apply to this Board in 1988 and his request was denied because of his failure to timely file. 

14.  The VA Decision Rating dated 20 February 2001 shows that the VA awarded him a 100% disability rating for service-connected bipolar disorder, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and general anxiety disorder, effective 26 October 2000.

15.  Army Regulation 615-369, in effect at the time, provided guidance for the separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability based on a demonstrated lack of adaptability for military service because of a character and behavior disorder.  The individual could receive an honorable or general discharge when discharge was recommended.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200, the regulation that superceded Army Regulation 615-369 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 22 April 1954 was accomplished in accordance with regulations then in effect.

2.  However, the applicant’s attitude, conduct and mental deficiency clearly indicate that he was unsuited to military life.  While his behavior is not condoned by the Board, the general discharge appears to be unduly harsh considering that the evidence of record shows that he suffered from a character and behavior disorder.  It appears that due to this mental deficiency, as diagnosed by a psychiatrist, he was incapable of meeting the standards of the Army and was unable to consistently act/serve in a manner that would be considered normal behavior for most soldiers.

3.  Given the absence of evidence to show otherwise, it must be presumed that the applicant clearly was not suited for military service from the very beginning.  Additionally, despite the lack of documented disciplinary action being taken against him, which is used to determine the characterization of discharge, he was separated from the service with a general discharge.  While the Board agrees that he was unsuitable for military service, the Board believes that the above mentioned memoranda should be applied to this case and that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.  

4.  The applicant’s contentions that he had to endure terrible treatment and humiliation are not supported by either the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.  Additionally, the transcript of the board of officers does not show that the commander took any part in the testimony or decision to separate him from the service.  Accordingly, his contentions appear to be without merit. 

5.  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 discharged from the service with an Honorable Discharge Certificate on 22 April 1954.

2.  That the Department of the Army issue to the individual concerned an Honorable Discharge Certificate dated 22 April 1954 in lieu of the General Discharge Certificate now held by him.

BOARD VOTE:  

__fe ____  ___mm__  __dh____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Fred N. Eichorn_____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064514	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/07/16	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1954/04/22	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR615-369	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNSUIT	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  547	144.4000/A40.00	
2.  557	144.4200/A42.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.