ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	
	BOARD DATE:  8 October 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20160016299


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  The applicant requests his general under honorable 
conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of 
the United States)
*	Letter from Applicant to the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC)
*	Letter from NPRC to applicant

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 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 he had no idea that he did not have an honorable discharge 
until March 2016, when he found a way to access his records.  At the time of his 
enlistment he planned to make the Army his life’s vocation, as his brother had.

3.  On 23 August 1963, at the age of 18 years old and 7 years of education, the 
applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States.  On 24 August 1963, he 
arrived at the Reception Station at Fort Ord, CA for in-processing.

4.  The complete circumstances surrounding his separation is not available; however, a 
review of his records shows that shortly after his arrival his commander referred him for 
a psychiatric evaluation.  The certificate by the psychiatrist who evaluated the applicant 
states: 

	a.  The applicant volunteered for induction because he was threatened with being 
sent to a detention home if he continued to refuse to live with his father.  He was not 
called to active duty until about a week ago.  He was married to a 14 year old girl who 
was pregnant.  He no longer wanted to join the Army at the time he was called to active 
duty.  Since he had been at the reception station, his behavior has been strange.  He 
indicated that he had so many worries and he has been unable to eat or sleep.  He had 
been seeking help from a variety of agencies.

	b.  He has had an extremely unstable background.  Since age 10, he indicated that 
he lived alternatively with an alcoholic father and in numerous different foster homes.  
He ran away from home and travelled around the county on his own; he quit school 
while he was in the 7th grade; and had many traumatic incidents with his father.  He 
was picked up by the police for running away from home and threaten with detention if 
he did not remain either with his father or an authorized foster home.  His wife’s parents 
were threatening to charge him with statutory rape if he did not return home and take 
care of his wife.

	c.  The psychiatrist stated that the applicant appeared to be operating at a mentally 
defective level despite his higher IQ.  He has never been able to adjust to any 
environment and appeared not to be able to adjust to the military service.  He was 
extremely immature and had poor control over his impulses.  He probably should not 
have been accepted for military service in view of his past instability.  The psychiatrist 
recommended that the applicant be eliminated from the service under Army Regulation 
(AR) 635-209.

	d.  The applicant was diagnosed with personality, inadequate, chronic, severe, 
manifested by a lifelong history of inability to adjust to either school, home, or in his 
relationships.  The condition existed prior to service.

5.  On 5 September 1963, the applicant acknowledged that his commander is 
recommending him for discharge for unsuitability.  He declined counsel and waived his 
right for a board of officers to hear his case.  He acknowledged that he could be 
ineligible for any or all Army and/or Veterans Affairs Benefits.  He signed the waiver and 
indicated that he would not submit statements in his own behalf. 

6.  The applicant’s senior commander recommended approval.  The memorandum of 
approval is not available for review; however, a memorandum from the assistant 
adjutant general stated that the applicant was directed for discharge under AR 635-209, 
with separation program number (SPN) 264 (character and behavior disorders) and to 
be issued a General Discharge Certificate.  

7.  On 13 September 1963, he was released from active duty.  His service was 
characterized as under honorable conditions (general).  He completed 21 days of total 
active service.  His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of 
Transfer) shows he was discharged as a trainee.

8.  The applicant provides:

	a.  Letter from Applicant to the NPRC stated he was requesting his discharge to be 
upgraded to an honorable discharge.  The reason for his early discharge was the 
military informed him that his wife had given birth to his son and put the baby in an 
orphanage.  He was given the option of leaving the military to care and raise his child or 
stay in the Army.  The Chaplain and other officers spoke with him to help him make the 
right decision. 

	b. Letter from the NPRC stated the NPRC had no authority to review the facts and 
circumstances surrounding separation from the military service.  The DD Form 293 
should be sent to the appropriate address listed on the form.

9.  AR 635-209, in effect at the time, states in pertinent part, an individual was subject to 
separation for unsuitability when one or more of the following conditions existed:  
inaptitude; character and behavior disorders; apathy (lack of appropriate interest, 
defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively); alcoholism; enuresis; 
and homosexuality.  When separation for unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or 
general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon 
the individual's entire record.  

10.  In 1977, Brotzman Memorandum required retroactive application of revised 
policies, attitudes and changes in reviewing applications for upgrade of discharges 
based on personality disorders.  In 1978, the Nelson Memorandum, 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.

11.  The applicant states he had no idea that he did not have an honorable discharge 
until March 2016, when he found a way to access his records.  His record shows that he 
was inducted at the age of 18 and was discharged after 21 days in service.  His 
available record did not contain any evidence of misconduct.

12.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition and his 
service record in light of the published DOD guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, 
evidence in the records and published DoD guidance for consideration of discharge 
upgrade requests.  The Board considered the applicant’s statement, his record and 
length of service, his education level, the assessment by a psychiatrist, the contents of 
the Brotzman memo, the reason for his separation and his characterized service.  The 
Board found in-service mitigation and determined liberal consideration was applicable.  
Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the character of 
service the applicant received upon separation was unjust and a correction was 
appropriate.

2.  After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that 
relief was warranted.

BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

X	:X	:X	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:	:	:	DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined the evidence presented is 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 amending the DD form 
214 for the period of service ending 13 September 1963 to reflect in item 13 a. 
(Character of Service) – “Honorable” vice “Under honorable conditions.”

	  
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 NOTE(S):

Not Applicable

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 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.  AR 635-209 (Personnel Separations Discharge - Unsuitability), in effect at the time, 
set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel who were determined 
to be unsuitable for further military service.  It stated an individual was subject to 
separation for unsuitability when one or more of the following conditions existed:  
inaptitude; character and behavior disorders; apathy (lack of appropriate interest, 
defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively); alcoholism; enuresis; 
and homosexuality (Class III - evidenced homosexual tendencies, desires, or interest, 
but was without overt homosexual acts).  When separation for unsuitability was 
warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the 
separation authority based upon the individual's entire record.  

3.  Army Regulation 635-200, which superseded Army Regulation 635-209, 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, 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.

4.  AR 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), currently in effect, 
governs the policies and procedures for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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.

5.  On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 
issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of 
Military/Naval Records regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations. 
Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence and 
BCMRs may grant clemency regardless of the court-martial forum.  However, the 
guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also 
applies to any other corrections, including changes in discharge, which may be 
warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. The guidance does not mandate 
relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of 
their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of 
equity, an injustice, or clemency grounds, BCMRs shall consider the twelve stated 
principles in the guidance as well as eighteen individual factors related to the applicant.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20160016299

6

1