IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 August 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150004032 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X____ ___X_____ ___X_____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 August 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150004032 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _____________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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 August 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150004032 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 request that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 2. The applicant states that he believes he should have been given a medical discharge because he was seeing a psychiatrist while in the hospital pending discharge from military service. He states that the military medical record he provides supports his request for correction of his discharge because the Army thought he was crazy and unfit for military service. The applicant requests personal appearance before the Board. 3. The applicant provides a copy of a: * WD AGO Form 261 (Request for Records from the Adjutant General) * memorandum of approved discharge, dated 27 May 1953 * DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States) * extract of his Army Discharge Review Board report (pages 2 and 3) * four letters of support 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 ABCMR in Docket Number AC95-05962 on 5 April 1995. 2. A Consent Agreement, dated 26 March 1951, shows the applicant was born in April 1933 and that his mother consented to his enlistment in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 3 years. 3. The applicant enlisted in the RA on 28 March 1951 for a period of 3 years. At the time he was 17 years of age. Upon completion of training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 1745 (Truck Driver). He attained the rank of private first class/pay grade E-3 on 7 December 1951. 4. He was convicted by courts-martial, as follows: * on 1 April 1952, by summary court-martial, of assaulting a noncommissioned officer (NCO) on 24 March 1952 (two specifications) * on 27 June 1952, by special court-martial, of disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer on 15 June 1952 (two specifications) * on 31 October 1952, by special court-martial, of assaulting an NCO on 14 October 1952 5. A WD AGO Form 261, dated 23 April 1953, shows the warrant officer junior grade who was serving as Chief, Medical Records and Statistics Branch, U.S. Army Hospital, Camp Pickett, VA, requested the applicant's records. It also shows, "[p]ertinent information incomplete due to the fact subject enlisted man is mentally incompetent and service records and accounts payable have not arrived at this hospital." 6. A Certificate of Neuropsychiatric Examination, Psychiatry and Neurology Service, U.S. Army Hospital, Camp Pickett, VA, dated 4 May 1953, shows the examining medical doctor (a psychiatrist) reported that the applicant was transferred to the hospital on 24 March 1953 from Ryukyus Army Hospital, Japan, where he had been admitted on 24 February 1953 because of his assaultiveness behavior and repeated courts-martial. a. The applicant was seen by the psychologist on 27 April 1953 where a full scale Intelligence Quotient of 55 was found indicative of mental defectiveness. b. The psychiatrist found this condition was not disabling and there were no disqualifying mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant discharge under the provisions of (UP) Army Regulation (AR) 600-450 (Personnel Separation for Physical Disability). c. He recommended the applicant be administratively separated from the military service. 7. The unit commander referred the applicant to a board of officers to determine if he should be retained in the military or separated UP AR 615-368 (Personnel Separations - Discharge – Undesirable Habits and Traits of Character) for unfitness based on traits of character rendering retention in the service undesirable. a. The applicant appeared before the board of officers with his legal counsel. b. The Board recommended the applicant be discharged for unfitness and issued an undesirable discharge. 8. On 27 May 1953, the discharge authority approved his separation with an undesirable discharge. 9. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 3 June 1953 UP AR 615-368 and his service was characterized as undesirable. He had completed 1 year, 8 months, and 21 days of net active service. Item 32 (Remarks) shows he had a total of 166 days of lost time. 10. On 8 October 1953, the applicant and his counsel submitted an application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) requesting review of his discharge. a. On 21 June 1954, the ADRB, in Docket Number 17790, reviewed the applicant's military service records and also summarized the evidence considered in the Record of Proceedings (ROP). The ADRB concluded that the applicant's appeal should be denied. b. On 30 June 1954, after a careful review of the entire case, the Secretary of the Army denied the applicant's request for a change in the type or nature of separation. 11. On 5 April 1995, the ABCMR denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge. 12. In support of his application the applicant provides the following documents. a. Pages 2 and 3 of the ADRB ROP with the following section highlighted that was taken from the Certificate of Neuropsychiatric Examination: Transferred here for further evaluation and final disposition with diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenic reaction. On admission enlisted man was pleasant and cooperative, but mentally dull. When questioned about his hallucinations, described them as "voices out of the wind," but his description and interpretation made it extremely doubtful that they were true hallucinations. Felt that enlisted man was primarily a mental defective with antisocial-like behavior when confronted with something he couldn't understand. Condition is not disabling and no disqualifying mental or physical defects present sufficient to warrant discharge UP AR 600-450. Was and is so far free from mental defect, disease, or derangement as to be able to distinguish between right and wrong and adhere to right. Recommendation: No further attempt at rehabilitation since he is useless to service and cannot be rehabilitated to extent to become a satisfactory Soldier. He should be separated UP AR 615-369 or AR 615-368 because of above diagnosis. b. A statement from J___ M. H____ S____, the applicant's spouse, in which she attests to his qualities as a husband, father, stepfather, grandfather, great grandfather, and member of the community. c. A statement from D___ H____, the sister-in-law of the applicant, in which she attests to his willingness to help her and her children through difficult times. d. A statement from P___ H____, the granddaughter of the applicant, who attests to his helpfulness, reliability, and willingness to share his knowledge and wisdom with her and her son. e. A statement from R___ A. M____, a friend of the applicant who has known him for 30 years. He attests to the applicant's willingness to help others who are in need regardless of their situation. 13. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Behavioral Health Division, Health Care Delivery, U.S. Army Medical Command, Office of The Surgeon General (OTSG), Falls Church, VA. a. The official stated that the advisory opinion was based solely on the information provided by the ABCMR as the Department of Defense electronic medical record (AHLTA) was not in use at the time of the applicant's service. b. The official provided a summary of the applicant's military service and his three courts-martial convictions. She offered that any of these behaviors could be symptomatic of cognitive defects or psychosis. Aggression is not an uncommon reaction, if you believe someone plans to hurt you. Nor is it unusual to become frustrated if you do not understand something either because you lack the mental capacity or because you are overwhelmed by voices inside your head. c. The official noted that in the May 1953 Neuropsychiatric Examination, the diagnostic impression provided was "primarily a mental defective with antisocial-like behavior when he was confronted with something he could not understand." The psychiatrist concluded the applicant's condition was not disabling and there were no disqualifying mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant medical discharge. d. The advisory official opined that the applicant's behavioral health (BH) conditions were not duly considered during his separation processing. The preponderance of evidence indicates that he was experiencing cognitive defects or psychosis which formed the basis of "mental incompetence." Therefore, he should have been referred to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) to evaluate whether he met retention standards. 14. On 22 June 2016, the applicant was provided a copy of the OTSG advisory opinion to allow him the opportunity (15 days) to submit comments or a rebuttal. A response was not received from the applicant. REFERENCES: 1. AR 615-368, in effect at the time of the applicant's separation from active duty, provided policy and guidance in the elimination from the service of enlisted personnel having undesirable habits and traits of character. 2. AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 3, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. b. Chapter 3, paragraph 3-7b, provides that an under honorable conditions discharge is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory, but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 3. AR 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. Paragraph 2-11 states that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director of the ABCMR or the chair of an ABCMR panel may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant requests a personal appearance hearing for reconsideration of his request for upgrade of his discharge. 2. By regulation, an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the ABCMR. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the ABCMR or by the Director of the ABCMR. In this case, the evidence of record, the independent evidence provided by the applicant, and the analysis of the information in a medical advisory opinion, are sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision at this time. 3. The applicant entered active duty on 28 March 1951. During 1952, he was convicted by a summary court-martial and two special courts-martial. 4. The document (WD AGO Form 261, dated 23 April 1953) that the applicant provides shows the Chief, Medical Records and Statistics Branch, U.S. Army Hospital, Camp Pickett, VA, requested the applicant's service records because they had not arrived at the hospital. The warrant officer junior grade indicated that the applicant was mentally incompetent. However, there is no evidence of record that shows this official was a medical doctor or that this was a confirmed medical diagnosis. 5. The Certificate of Neuropsychiatric Examination, dated 4 May 1953, shows the diagnostic impression was "primarily a mental defective with antisocial-like behavior when he was confronted with something he could not understand." a. The examining psychiatrist found the applicant's condition was not disabling and that there were no disqualifying mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant medical discharge of the applicant. b. The OTSG advisory official opines that the applicant's BH conditions were not duly considered during his separation processing and he should have been referred to an MEB to evaluate whether he met retention standards. c. However, it cannot now be determined if the applicant's mental condition (at the time) was unfitting and, therefore, disqualifying for further military service. d. The evidence of record does not support the applicant's contention that he should have been medically discharged. 6. The applicant's discharge for unfitness UP AR 615-368 based on traits of character rendering retention in the service undesirable was administratively correct. All requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Considering all the facts of the case, his separation and the characterization of his service were appropriate and equitable. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150004032 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150004032 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2