ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 February 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160019712 APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of the previous Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decision promulgated in Docket Number AR20150005816, on 9 June 2015. a. Specifically, he requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge), issued on 24 June 2015 for the period ending 13 August 1971, by deleting the entries in item 25 (Separation Authority), item 26 (Separation Code), and item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation), and by replacing those deleted entries with more favorable entries consistent with an honorable discharge. b. As a new issue, he requests correction of his DD Form 214 to show he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) * General Orders Number 2428, issued by Headquarters, 1st Aviation Brigade on 24 March 1971 * ABCMR Record of Proceedings in Docket Number AR20150005816, dated 9 June 2015 * a copy of his reissued DD Form 214 and DD Form 256A (Honorable Discharge Certificate) * three self-authored statements, dated 15 May, 25 July, and 5 August 2016 FACTS: 1. The applicant’s award request for the Army Commendation Medal are supported by sufficient evidence; therefore, it will be administratively corrected and not considered by the Board. 2. Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20150005816, on 9 June 2015. 3. The applicant provides new evidence in the form of three self-authored statements. These statements constitute new evidence that was not previously considered by the Board. Therefore, it will be considered at this time. 4. In self-authored statements, dated 15 May, 25 July, and 5 August 2016, the applicant states: a. Why would the Board grant him full relief, void his original DD Form 214, and then reenter the voided material on his new DD Form 214? He has to submit copies of his DD Form 214 for tax relief. United Services Automobile Association (USAA) Homeowner's Insurance refused him last time because his discharge had to be clearly stated as an Honorable Discharge along with other veterans' organizations, etc. Since he could never submit this document to anyone, he is stuck losing financially. In the interest of justice, he needs a clean DD Form 2I4. If the Board could eliminate all material in boxes #25 through #28 on his new DD Form 214 and code it to comply with an honorable discharge, he could have proof of a clear Honorable Discharge, as he was led to believe he was receiving. b. He feels the 100% negative evaluations in his report are unnecessary. He met the Board's criteria for an upgrade, for this type of resolution to his case, why was it necessary to investigate and compile a six paragraph legal document with detailed humiliating language that attack and blame him for everything? There was no reference to the fact that he was a combat veteran that served honorably in the Vietnam War. It is a total contradiction to his company commander's evaluation in Vietnam, from 1970- 1971, who knew more about his conduct and efficiency and rated him "EXCELLENT" in these categories. The Board also emphasized, on three occasions, his chronic difficulty with authority figures prior to his service. He wonders where the proof is to support these authority figures. c. He never understood, until he read the Board's "Consideration of Evidence," his so-called chronic difficulty with authority figures, prior to service, was the reason doctors used to justify their recommendation to Army officials for a General Discharge for unsuitability. The word "chronic'' means continuing or occurring again and again for a long period of time. It doesn't stop in early high school and then miraculously restart approximately 3 years later after a 7 day stay in an Army hospital. He received the highest rating for conduct and efficiency by his company commander in Vietnam, who also promoted him to specialist five (SP5)/E-5 in about 18 months and recommended him for the Army Commendation Medal from May 1970 to May 1971. d. The codes and language in items 25, 26, and 28 on his new DD Form 214, do not support the upgrade of his honorable discharge he received in accordance with the Board proceedings in Docket Number AR20160019712, dated 9 June 2015. Additionally, the Army Commendation Medal was not annotated on his DD Form 214. 5. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army 22 September 1969. He completed his initial entry training, was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 67N (UH-1 Helicopter Repairman), served in the Republic of Vietnam from on or about 22 May 1970 through on or about 21 April 1971, and attained the rank/grade of SP5/E-5. 6. General Orders Number 2428, issued by Headquarters, 1st Aviation Brigade on 24 March 1971, awarded the applicant the Army Commendation Medal. 7. The applicant’s records does not contain evidence that confirms he was the subject of any adverse action during his period of military service. 8. The Record of Proceedings in Docket Number AR20150005816, dated 9 June 2015, noted the applicant's referral for a psychiatry consultation upon his return from Vietnam. The referring physician stated: a. The patient has been mute since he witnessed an aircraft accident in which his friends were killed. This started about 45 minutes after the accident occurred. b. He began talking after he was given l00mg of Pentothal in an IV. He stated that he wanted to see a psychiatrist and feels that something is taking over his mind. The physician's impressions were listed as "combat fatigue, mutism, catatonic." c. The psychiatrist stated "This condition represents a basic character and behavior disorder and is not amenable to hospitalization, treatment in a military setting, disciplinary action, training or reclassification to another type of duty." d. The applicant stated he would like to begin seeing a psychiatrist in the near future, but states he will be alright and that he wants to go with his friends. The psychiatrist stated that this type of problem usually responds to a return to the unit after the hysteria has cleared. 9. The applicant's commander notified him on 28 July 1971 of his intent to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Discharge, Unfitness and Unsuitability). The basis for the proposed discharge was unsuitability. His commander advised him of his right to present his case before a board of officers, submit statements in his own behalf, and receive representation by counsel before a board of officers. The applicant acknowledged receipt of this notification the same day. 10. The applicant consulted with counsel on 30 July 1971, waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and waived a personal appearance. He acknowledged his understanding that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in the event an under honorable conditions (general) discharge was issued to him. 11. The separation authority approved the applicant's discharge on 3 August 1971, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unsuitability, and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. 12. The applicant was discharged on 13 August 1971. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212; he was issued Separation Program Number (SPN) "264" (Unsuitability, character and behavioral disorders); and his service was characterized as under honorable conditions. 13. The applicant petitioned the Board for relief, in the form of an upgrade to his service characterization. The Board considered his case and granted relief in Docket Number AR20150005816, dated 9 June 2015. In doing so, the Board considered the impact of the Brotzman and Nelson memoranda in determining the appropriateness of the service characterization directed vis-à-vis his unsuitability separation. Consequently, his service characterization was upgraded from under honorable condition (general) to honorable. The Board did not dispute the appropriateness of the separation or the circumstances that led to it, only the characterization of service the applicant received. 14. Army Regulation 635-212 provided the authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability. BOARD DISCUSSION: The Board considered the applicant’s request with all supporting documents, evidence in the service record and applicable policies and guidance. The Board finds there is an injustice in that the applicant is treated negatively for the inconsistency of his Honorable character of service with the other information on his DD Form 214. The Board grants full relief to correct items 25, 26 and 28 on his DD Form 214. BOARD VOTE: Member 1 Member 2 Member 3 X X X Full Grant : : : Partial Grant : : : Formal Hearing Grant : : : Deny BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant amendment of the ABCMR's decision in Docket Number ARAR20150005816, dated 9 June 2015. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending his DD Form 214, dated 13 August 1971 which shows an Honorable Character of Service to reflect changes to the following items: * Item 25 (Separation Authority): AR 635–200, para 5–3 * Item 26 (Separation Code): LFF * Item 28 Narrative Reason for Separation : Secretarial Authority ___________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. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTES: 1. A review of the applicant's record shows his DD Form 214, issued on 24 June 2015 for the period ending 13 August 1971, is missing information related to his awards and decorations. 2. Accordingly amend the applicant’s DD Form 214 to show he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal, as awarded in General Orders Number 2428, issued by Headquarters, 1st Aviation Brigade on 24 March 1971. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, 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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records (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 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is what the Army did was correct. It is not an investigative agency. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 3. Army Regulation 635-5 (Personnel Separations – Separation Documents), then in effect, provided the regulatory guidance related to the preparation of the DD Form 214. Appendix A (SPN and Authority Governing Separations) provided for SPNs and their corresponding reason for separation/discharge. The SPN "264" was the correct code for Soldiers separating under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unsuitability – character and behavior disorder. 4. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), as published on 23 November 1972, became the governing regulation for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel, which included the categories of separations previously governed by Army Regulation 635-212. A Department of the Army (DA) message number 302221Z, dated March 1976, changed "character and behavior disorder" to "personality disorder" and Army Regulation 635-200 was revised on 1 December 1976. 5. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, provided the authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability based on inaptitude, character and behavior disorder, apathy, enuresis and alcoholism. Members separated under these provisions could receive either an honorable discharge or general discharge. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160019712