IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150013520 BOARD VOTE: ___x_____ __x____ ___x____ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150013520 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for 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; b. issuing him a new DD Form 214 reflecting his character of service as "Honorable"; and c. issuing him an Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 14 October 1983, in lieu of the General Discharge Certificate of the same date he now holds. ___________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: 25 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150013520 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 an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states the Army offered him an early separation; however, no one explained he would receive a general discharge. 3. The applicant did not provide any supporting 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. On 6 May 1982, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. Upon completion of initial entry training, the Army awarded him military occupational specialty (MOS) 64C (Motor Transport Operator). 3. The applicant received formal counseling five times between 27 January and 8 August 1983 for disciplinary infractions that included: * failure to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time and wearing the incorrect uniform * being involved in an altercation off post * substandard appearance (3 times) 4. On 1 August 1983, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation that showed his/he: * behavior was passive agressive * was fully alert and oriented * mood was unremarkable * thinking process was clear * thought content was normal * memory was good * was mentally responsible * had the mental capacity to understand and participate in separation proceedings 5. The above mental status evaluation also determined that he had a history of adjustment problems while in the service and clinical impressions suggested he had characterological problems, pre-existing to entry into the service, with the prognosis of change poor. It was determined that he was likely to continue to be extremely dissatisfied with the Army. Accordingly, his performance may be expected to remain poor. He was not likely to profit from counseling. 6. On 15 September 1983, the commander notified the applicant he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of paragraph 5-13 of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). Additionally, the applicant was advised that when he acknowledged receipt of notification an appointment would be made for him to consult with consulting counsel concerning his rights. The commander did not specifically state the bases for the separation notification or the type of discharge he would receive. 7. On 15 December 1983, the applicant consulted with counsel and he was advised of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him under paragraph 5-13, Army Regulation 635-200, and its effects; of the rights available to him; and the effects of any action taken by him in waiving his rights. He waived his rights and stated that he did not desire to submit a statement in his own behalf. He indicated that he had retained a copy of this statement. 8. A psychiatric evaluation completed on 27 September 1983 shows a medical authority diagnosed the applicant with “mixed personality disorder, chronic, severe, manifested by immaturity, poor judgment, and extreme difficulty in adjusting to the military.” It also shows: a. His personality was such that people frequently became angry with him. His interpersonal skills were marked by bragging and grandiosity. As well, he often got into trouble by using extremely poor judgment. He allegedly sold drugs to be befriended by a female he was interested in dating. b. His work performance and motivation for continued service was poor. Counseling given at the Community Mental Health Activity resulted in no significant improvement in his behavior. c. The Soldier’s mental disorder did not warrant disposition through medical channels. However, his character/personality disorder adversely affected his duty performance. Therefore, he was strongly recommended for administrative discharge in accordance with AR 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 13. 9. On 27 September 1983, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge due to personality disorder, waived the requirement for a rehabilitation transfer, and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. 10. On 14 October 1983, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 5-13, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of personality disorder. He completed 1 year, 5 months, and 9 days of active service that was characterized as under honorable conditions. 11. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within the ADRB's 15-year statute of limitations. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, provided the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-13 stated a Soldier could be separated for personality disorder (as determined by medical authority), not amounting to disability under Army Regulation 635-40, that interfered with assignment to or performance of duty. a. The regulation required that the condition be a deeply-ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration that interfered with the Soldier's ability to perform duty. Commanders would not take action prescribed in this paragraph in lieu of disciplinary action. The diagnosis must have concluded that the disorder was so severe that the Soldier’s ability to function in the military environment was significantly impaired. Separation for personality disorder was not appropriate when separation was warranted under chapter 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, or 15 of this regulation; Army Regulation 604-10; or Army Regulation 635-40. b. Paragraph 5-13h refers to paragraph 5-5, which states a Soldier separated per this paragraph will be awarded a characterization of service of honorable, under honorable conditions, or an entry level separation. No member will be awarded a character of service of under honorable conditions under this section unless the member is notified of the specific factors in his or service record that warrant such a characterization, using the notification procedures. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends his record requires correcting to show he received an honorable discharge because no one ever explained he would receive a general characterization of service. The evidence indicates the required notification procedure may not have been properly applied in this case 2. The evidence of record, as corroborated by the facts contained in his discharge packet, shows the applicant’s commander did not notify him of any actions or factors in his service that warranted receipt of a general discharge. According to the regulation, no member will be awarded a character of service of under honorable conditions under this section (paragraph 5-5, Army Regulation 635-200) unless the member is notified of the specific factors in the service record that warrant such a characterization, using the notification procedures. This procedural error in the applicant’s discharge processing is a basis for upgrading his characterization of service as a matter of justice. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150013520 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150013520 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2