ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 January 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160018419 APPLICANT REQUESTS: medical discharge in lieu of under honorable conditions discharge due to unsuitability. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record). FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states his discharge should be a medical discharge because he had a mental breakdown. He did not have any health problems, especially mental health prior to joining the military. He hasn’t had any mental health issues since his discharge. 3. A review of his service records shows: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 July 1964. b. On 9 August 1964, he underwent a psychiatric evaluation. Upon examination the psychiatrist recommended the applicant receive an administrative separation based on a diagnosis of severe emotional instability. c. On 1 September 1964, the applicant's unit commander notified him of pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-209 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness and Unsuitability) for unsuitability. d. The applicant acknowledged notification of the separation action, consulted with legal counsel, waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived a personal appearance before a board of officers, and did not submit statements in his own behalf. He acknowledged that he understood that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in the event a general discharge under honorable conditions was issued to him. He further acknowledged that he understood that as a result of the issuance of an undesirable discharge under conditions other than honorable, he may be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws, and that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life. e. On 1 September 1964, the separation authority directed the applicant be discharged under the provisions of AR 635-209, with a separation program number (SPN) of 264 (unsuitability due to character and behavior disorders), and issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. e. On 23 September 1964, the applicant was discharged accordingly. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-209, SPN 264 (character and behavior disorders) for unsuitability, and issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. He completed 2 month and 9 days of total active service during this period. f. His service record does not indicate he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 4. An advisory opinion was obtained from the Army Review Boards senior medical advisor on 27 November 2019, which states the applicant was discharged due to a preexisting behavioral health condition. It is likely that he was exhibiting primordial symptoms of what has subsequently been diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenia. His difficulty functioning in a structured military training environment and inability to respond to rehabilitation efforts, resulted in his discharge from military service after 2 months and 9 days of service. Medical discharge/retirement is not warranted as his medical condition existed prior to his service. 5. The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion on 3 December 2019 and given an opportunity to submit comments. The applicant did not respond.. 6. By regulation in effect at the time (AR 635-209), action would be taken to discharge an individual for unsuitability only 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. Evaluation by a medical officer was required and, when psychiatric indications were involved, the medical officer must have been a psychiatrist, if one was available. A general or an honorable discharge was considered appropriate. Unsuitability included inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, and apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively). 7. AR 635-212 superseded AR 635-209, and AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations), which superseded AR 635-212, was revised on 1 December 1976, following settlement of a civil suit. Thereafter, the type of discharge and the character of service were to be determined solely by the individual's military record during the current enlistment. Further, any separation for unsuitability based on personality disorder (previously called character and behavior 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, 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. 8. 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. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, to include the DoD guidance on liberal consideration when reviewing discharge upgrade requests, the Board found relief was not warranted. Based upon the advisory official finding the medical condition preexisting and the lack of a rebuttal submitted by the applicant, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice which would warrant a correction to the record. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING X X X DENY APPLICATION 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. 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. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 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 only 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. Evaluation by a medical officer was required and, when psychiatric indications were involved, the medical officer must have been a psychiatrist, if one was available. A general or an honorable discharge was considered appropriate. Unsuitability included: * inaptitude * character and behavior disorders * disorders of intelligence and transient personality disorders due to acute or special stress * apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively * enuresis * chronic alcoholism * Class III homosexuality (evidenced homosexual tendencies, desires, or interest, but was without overt homosexual acts) 3. On 15 July 1966, Army Regulation 635-212 (Unfitness and Unsuitability) consolidated/superseded Army Regulation 635-208 and Army Regulation 635-209. 4. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), which superseded Army Regulation 635-212, was revised on 1 December 1976, following settlement of a civil suit. Thereafter, the type of discharge and the character of service were 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, 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. 5. 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. 6. Appendix A (SPN) and Authority Governing Separations) of Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, provided for an SPN and corresponding reason for separation/discharge. The SPN (later renamed Separation Program Designator codes) are three-character alphabetic combinations which identify reasons for and types of separation from active duty. The SPN of "264" was the SPN assigned to Soldiers discharged for unsuitability due to character and behavior disorders. NOTHING FOLLOWS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160018419 4 1