IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 11 February 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150007875 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 correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) by: * deleting his military occupational specialty (MOS) * deleting his under honorable conditions characterization of service * showing his characterization of service as honorable * issuing an honorable "display certificate" showing only his name 2. The applicant states he was in the Utah Army National Guard (UTARNG) prior to enlisting in the Regular Army. He contends that he had documents showing his discharge was processed on 3 March 1966, which should be his date of separation from the Regular Army. He further argues that because he has made this request four times without any resolution he no longer has any documents. 3. The applicant provides no additional documentation. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. A DD Form 4 (Enlistment Record) shows the applicant enlisted in the UTARNG for 6 years. 3. A National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows the applicant enlisted in the UTARNG on 2 March 1964. He held MOS 941.10 (Cook). He was discharged on 19 March 1965 in the rank of private first class with an honorable characterization of service. 4. A DD Form 4 shows the applicant enlisted on 10 September 1965 in the Regular Army for 3 years. 5. A DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows the applicant was awarded MOS 94B (Cook) on 10 December 1965. 6. The applicant was advanced to the rank of private/pay grade E-2 effective 10 January 1966. 7. A DD Form 493 (Extract of Military Records of Previous Convictions) dated 21 January 1966 indicates the applicant did not have any convictions. 8. On 21 January 1966, the applicant's commander recommended his separation from military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unsuitability) for unsuitability. He cited the applicant's character behavior disorder and related problems. 9. A 3AA Form 215 (Personal History of Accused) dated 26 January 1966, indicates the applicant had no record of civil or military offenses. His conduct and efficiency ratings were unsatisfactory. 10. A DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), subject: Extract of Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) dated 11 February 1966, indicates the applicant never accepted any NJP. 11. On 11 February 1966 the applicant stated he had been counseled and advised of the basis for his separation. He declined the opportunity to request counsel or to have his case heard by a board of officers. He also elected to not submit a statement in his own behalf. 12. On 16 February 1966 the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. 13. On 25 February 1966 the applicant was discharged accordingly. He completed a total of 5 months and 16 days of creditable active duty service. It shows his rank as private, pay grade E-2, and his MOS as 94B (Cook). He was given a separation program number (SPN) 264 indicating the reason for his discharge was due to unsuitability based on a diagnosis of a character and behavior disorder, personality disorder. 14. On 2 March 1966, the Office of the Adjutant General, U.S. Army Administration Center, issued letter orders directing the applicant's discharge from the USAR Control Group (Annual Training) effective 9 September 1965 based on his enlistment in the Regular Army. He was also issued a DD Form 256A (Honorable Discharge Certificate) for his USAR service ending on 9 September 1965. 15. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 16. Army Regulation (AR) 635-5 (Separation Documents), as then in effect, provided detailed instructions for completing separation documents, including the DD Form 214.  It provided that the DD Form 214 is a summary of a Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty. It provided a brief, clear-cut record of active duty service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge. 17. AR 635-209, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and prescribed procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsuitability. Action would be taken to discharge an individual for unsuitability when, in the commander's opinion, it was clearly established that the individual was unlikely to develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier or the individual's psychiatric or physical condition was such as to not warrant discharge for disability. Unsuitability included inaptitude, character and behavior disorders; disorders of intelligence; and transient personality disorders due to acute or special stress, apathy, defective attitude, and inability to expend effort constructively; enuresis; chronic alcoholism; and homosexuality. Evaluation by a medical officer was required and, when psychiatric indications were involved, the medical officer must be a psychiatrist, if one was available. An honorable or general discharge was considered appropriate. Otherwise, return to duty or referral for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness) was directed. 18. AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) 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. 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 upgrade 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 disorder 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. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant contends that his DD Form 214 should be corrected by: * deleting his MOS * deleting his under honorable conditions characterization of service * showing his characterization of service as honorable * issuing an honorable "display certificate" showing only his name 2. The available evidence shows the applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of this case. 3. The applicant was separated due to a personality disorder with a general discharge in accordance with the regulation in effect at the time. However, it now appears the applicant’s overall service record and his separation based on a personality disorder warrant upgrading his discharge to fully honorable as directed by the revision of AR 635-200. Therefore, it would be appropriate to grant the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. 4. However, that portion of his request concerning deleting his MOS from his DD Form 214 should be denied because there is no apparent error or injustice. Furthermore, there are no provisions for simply removing information from the form that was properly and appropriately entered. 5. The applicant’s request to issue him a discharge certificate showing only his name should be denied because there are no regulatory provisions for issuing such documents with only partial data. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ____X____ ___X_____ ___X_____ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. voiding his current DD Form 214 showing an under honorable conditions characterization of service; b. issuing him a new DD Form 214, effective 25 February 1966, showing his characterization of service as honorable; and c. issuing him an Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 25 February 1966. 2. The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to deleting his military occupational specialty from his DD Form 214 or issuing him a certificate with only partial data. ____________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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130008767 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150007875 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1