ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 September 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180013750 APPLICANT REQUESTS: the following through Counsel: .reconsideration of his prior request for upgrade of discharge under other thanhonorable condition (UOTHC) .amendment of his narrative reason for separation to show Secretarial authority .personal appearance before the Board APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: .DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) .Counsel’s letter, dated 24 October 2018 .Counsel’s brief, dated 24 October 2018 .DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) .State Supreme Court Decision and Order, dated 2 April 2001 .applicant’s personal statement .partial DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) .DA Form 4126-R (Bar to Reenlistment Certificate .Pacific Stars and Stripes articles .DA Form 2-2 (Insert Sheet to DA form 2-1) .brother’s character reference statement .Samaritan Village Veterans Program certificate, dated 29 June 2005 .Samaritan Village Veterans Program certificate, dated 29 September 2010 .psychiatric evaluation, dated 20 August 2018 .prior Record of Proceedings in Docket Number AR1999023834, dated 1 July1999 FACTS: 1.Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in theprevious consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction ofMilitary Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR1999023834 on 1 July 1999. 2.Counsel states: a.The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army with dreams of escaping the challengingcircumstances of his youth. He had a troubled childhood, felt directionless as a young man, and knew he needed a fresh start. b.Unbeknownst to the applicant, he was struggling with antisocial personalitydisorder (ASPD). The affliction set in when he was only a child. His ASPD, now diagnosed by a psychiatrist, caused him to have difficulty adapting to social norms, have conflicts with authority figures, and to have heightened irritability. This was the root of his problems as a teenager and young adult. c.After enlistment, his ASPD caused him to fail to conform to the standardsexpected of a Soldier. After successfully completing Basic Combat Training (BCT), he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on multiple occasions at his first duty station in South Korea. Later, several weeks after a deadly patrol in a minefield that killed his platoon sergeant, the applicant got into a physical confrontation with two noncommissioned officers (NCOs), after which he was tried by a special court-martial and received a UOTHC discharge. d.The military’s view of personality disorders has changed in recent decades andthe Army has published extensive guidance pertaining to Soldiers who struggle with ASPD. In the 1970s, the Army published a series of memoranda requiring that Soldiers with any personality disorder receive a discharge characterization of honorable. Moreover, the Army explicitly made this guidance retroactive and the ABCMR has applied this guidance to veterans who suffered from the affliction during service though they were not discharged pursuant to separation regulations pertaining to personality disorders. e.The applicant was struggling with undiagnosed ASPD at the time of his service.Army policies require that service members separated as a result of a personality disorder receive an honorable characterization of service. f.Counsel reiterates the applicant’s telling of his early life, military service, minefieldincident, and events leading to his discharge nearly verbatim as found in the applicant’s personal statement recounted below. g.The applicant struggled for decades following his discharge and his brother, aU.S. Marine Corps veteran, attests to the applicant’s experience of severe hardships in his life. Eventually, the applicant was able to take advantage of the relative tranquility of civilian life, which lacks the rigors and stress of the military world. He established some semblance of normalcy following his last period of incarceration, which ended in 2003. This was in large part due to his successful graduation from the Samaritan Village Veterans Residential Treatment Program in 2005. Through hard work, he has proudly maintained his sobriety and has not had any further legal trouble. h.Throughout his life, the applicant has struggled to meet society’s demands.These struggles have prevented him from achieving most measures of traditional success, including consistent employment and long-term, happy relationships. He never knew why he had these problems until he was diagnosed with ASPD on 20 August 2018, which he had since childhood. The psychiatric fellow at Albert Einstein College of Medicine stated in her opinion the applicant’s “presentation is consistent with a diagnosis of [ASPD], as evidenced through his history of failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behavior, impulsive behavior, irritability or aggressive behavior through a history of physical altercations, and behaviors consistent with conduct disorder as a child and adolescent.” Although the applicant’s personality disorder has been static throughout his life, he was never previously diagnosed with a personality disorder. i.The applicant suffered from ASPD for most of his life, including while he was inthe Army. Army regulation relating to the discharge of Soldiers with a personality disorder require that most individuals with a personality disorder receive a discharge characterization of honorable. The ABCMR has determined that as a matter of equity, this policy applies to veterans who had a personality disorder during service, even when the veteran was discharged pursuant to separation regulations that do not directly relate to personality disorders. j.In the late 1970s, the Army revised its discharge processes for individuals withpersonality disorder. Specifically, on 14 January 1977, the Army released a memorandum known as the Brotzman Memorandum, which “required retroactive application of revised policies, attitudes, and changes in reviewing applications for the upgrade of discharges based on personality disorders.” A second memorandum, dated 8 February 1978, 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.” k.Accordingly, the Brotzman and Nelson memoranda collectively mandate that anapplicant receive an upgrade to honorable characterization when a personality disorder existed at the time of the discharge and there are no clear and demonstrable reasons to not upgrade, such as a general court-martial conviction or two special court-martial convictions. l.The ABCMR routinely upgrades discharge characterizations to honorable basedon this guidance. For example, in the case of another applicant, in Docket Number AR20140021626, the Board upgraded a discharge to honorable despite less than exemplary service, which included a conviction by special court-martial. In that case, the applicant accepted NJP for various infractions within the first 7 months of his service. A special court-martial found that applicant guilty and sentenced him to 3 months confinement. A mental evaluation done at the time of his service determined the applicant had a diagnosis of chronic, severe, antisocial personality, manifested by negative motivation with recurrent disciplinary difficulties and poor social adjustment, which existed prior to duty and was not in the line of duty. Shortly after the mental evaluation, that applicant’s unit administratively separated him with a general discharge, citing his habitual absence without leave, NJP, special court-martial, bad attitude, failure to respond to counseling, noncooperation toward a communication instructor, and other disciplinary issues. Despite these issues and based on the guidance from the Brotzman and Nelson memoranda, the ABCMR upgraded the applicant’s discharge characterization to honorable. m.The applicant’s case is strikingly similar. Within the first several months of hisarrival in South Korea in February 1979, he had accumulated three NJPs, in essence for failing to conform to military standards. Like the applicant in Docket Number AR20140021626, he was convicted in a special court-martial. And like the applicant, he was diagnosed with ASPD in 2018, “as evidenced through is history of failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behavior, impulsive behavior, irritability or aggressive behavior through a history of physical altercations.” n.The Brotzman and Nelson memoranda entitle the applicant to a dischargeupgrade even though the Army was not aware of his ASPD at the time of his discharge. The ABCMR has recognized that “the presence of a personality disorder diagnosis [justifies] an upgrade of a discharge to fully honorable” even when a service member was discharged pursuant to separation regulations not pertaining specifically to personality disorders. o.For example, in Docket Number AR2004103916, the ABCMR upgraded anotherapplicant’s service characterization when the applicant was discharged “for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.” That applicant had a troubled childhood, which included criminal activity and fights with other children and after enlistment showed clear signs of difficulty adjusting to military life almost immediately. Within 1 year of induction, he had two convictions by special courts-martial and numerous unauthorized absences when he requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial. Decades later, he applied for a discharge upgrade and the ABCMR granted his request, citing the Brotzman and Nelson memoranda and noting he may not have been medically qualified for induction had the Army known of his personality disorder at the time of his enlistment. The Board stated this applicant’s overall behavior reflected his mental status at the time of his induction and was indicative of his poor judgment and inability to adjust to military life, despite not knowing about the applicant’ personality disorder at the time of his service. p.Equity requires the Board treat the applicant similarly to the applicant in DocketNumber AR2004103916 and grant his a discharge upgrade. Based on Dr. S____ findings and the broadly accepted principle that personality disorders are static and lifelong, it is clear the applicant’s troubled childhood and his difficulties in the military are the result of his undiagnosed personality disorder. It would be inequitable to saddle the applicant with a less than honorable discharge after he has already carried that burden for 38 years and when the Army likely would not have accepted him for enlistment had anyone known about his ASPD. q.The ABCMR has the authority to recommend a personal hearing whenappropriate in the interest of justice. Although the ABCMR rarely grants a personal hearing, the applicant formally requests a hearing to give the Board the opportunity to address any questions left unanswered by the application. 3.The applicant states:a.He was born with the name T____ at the U.S. Naval Hospital in Queens, NY and spent most of his youth living in Brooklyn. He came from a large family and was the second oldest of 8 children. His mother had the primary responsibility of raising him and his siblings, but he also tried to help out. He used to shine shoes and would give the proceeds to his family. b.He grew up in a tough neighborhood. His peers and those older than him wereconstantly pressuring him to join gangs and to take part in some of their criminal activity. He did not have a lot of father figures around him growing up and his mother was always working, so he used to look up to some of the people in these gangs. Eventually, he was arrested for robbery and he served a short prison sentence. After his imprisonment, he had a deep conversation with his mother about his future and they agreed he would not be able to have a successful, happy life in Brooklyn. He then decided to try to make something of himself by enlisting in the Army as an Infantryman. c.He attended BCT at Fort Knox, KY. He enjoyed the training and thinks he didwell there. He liked the spirit of the bayonet as it provided him an outlet for his aggression away from the streets of New York. He also did well at Advanced Infantry Training, where he was assigned the role of squad leader. d.After training he was sent to Camp Casey, South Korea, where he was part of the2nd Infantry Division stationed near the Korean demilitarized zone (DMZ). During this time he conducted many patrols into the DMZ. Unfortunately, these missions included one terrible incident that led to the death of his platoon sergeant and injuries to two other Soldiers. e.On 8 December 1979, he was preparing to go on patrol with his platoon when apatrol from another company had just returned and warned them that it was foggy near the DMZ and that they had difficulty navigating. During the patrol, their platoon accidentally entered a minefield in the DMZ, when a mine exploded, injuring multiple Soldiers. He saw his platoon sergeant on the ground with is leg blown off and although an American helicopter arrived shortly thereafter to evacuate the wounded Soldiers, his platoon sergeant’s body was not recovered at the time. He was returned by the North Koreans several days later. f. That patrol deeply affected him and he frequently had visions of his platoon sergeant’s body in the minefield. To dull his feelings he began drinking more and the violence of the minefield event is something that still haunts him. About 6 weeks after his platoon sergeant died, he got into a confrontation with two NCOs in his unit. As a result, he was tried by a special court-martial and found guilty. He was then discharged on 9 December 1980 with a UOTHC discharge and a narrative reason stating “as a result of court-martial.” g. His life was difficult for decades following his discharge. He turned to the streets and began using drugs. His drug habit led to multiple periods of incarcerations. All of his offenses were drug related except for one instance of third degree burglary when he was caught stealing items out of a garbage can. His last period of incarceration ended in 2003 and he has not been arrested since. He previously attempted to upgrade his discharge characterization, but was not represented by an attorney at the time and the Board denied his application. h. He always knew he had more trouble than most people when it came to achieving traditional success. Prior to, during, and after his military service, he struggled to establish a happy and stable personal and professional life. However, he never fully understood why and he never had a mental health diagnosis that might have provided him with an answer. i. On 20 August 2018, he discovered he had ASPD for most of his life. Dr. S____, a psychiatrist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, conducted a psychiatric evaluation of him. Her conclusion was that he had ASPD since he was a child and that the disorder has been with him throughout his adulthood. This was the first time he received a diagnosis of this kind. 4.The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 October 1978. 5.A DA form 4126-R, dated 29 November 1979 shows the applicant’s conduct andefficiency were rated as unsatisfactory and he was pending separation under theprovisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel),chapter 13, for misconduct. He accepted NJP under Article 15 of the Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice (UCMJ) on the following occasions for the following offenses: .31 August 1979, for failure to repair and pass violation .3 October 1979, for failure to repair .28 November 1979, for disobeying a lawful order 6.Headquarters, 2nd Infantry Division Special Court-Martial Order Number 38, dated 17 April 1980, shows he was arraigned and tried before a special court-martial where he was charged with and found guilty of the following:•assaulting Staff Sergeant F____, his superior NCO who was then in the execution of his office, by striking him in the chest with his hands on 19 January 1980•assaulting Staff Sergeant C____, his superior NCO who was then in the execution of his office, by kicking him in the leg with his foot on 19 January 19807.On 17 March 1980, he was sentenced to forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 5 months, confinement at hard labor for 30 days, and discharge from the Army with a bad conduct discharge.8.Headquarters, 7th Infantry Division and Fort Ord Special Court-Martial Order Number 105, dated 20 November 1980, shows the sentence to a bad conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for 30 days, and forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 5 months was affirmed and that all requirements having been complied with, the sentence would be duly executed.9.The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 9 December 1980 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, as a result of court-martial, after 2 years, 1 month, and 21 days of net active service. His service was characterized as UOTHC.10.The applicant was not discharged due to personality disorder and there is no evidence of record he was ever diagnosed with or treated for personality disorder or any other behavioral health condition during his period of service.11.The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), requesting an upgrade to his discharge, and on 20 June 1988 the ADRB informed him his request was denied as it was determined he was properly and equitably discharged.12.The applicant subsequently applied to the ABCMR requesting an upgrade to his discharge and on 1 July 1999, the Board denied his request, having found he was properly and equitably discharged.13.He provided two certificates from the Samaritan Village Veterans Program. The first is dated 29 June 2005 and shows he successfully completed Residential Treatment and advanced to Continuing Care. The second is dated 29 September 2010, and recognizes him for exemplifying the spirit of their culture through long term recovery, service and fidelity to their creed, “Brotherhood, Courage, Commitment.” 14.He provided a letter from Dr. S____, Forensic Psychiatry Fellow, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx Psychiatric Center, dated 20 August 2018, which states:a.She performed a psychiatric evaluation on the applicant on 19 July 2018, at the request of his attorney, in order to determine if he was suffering from a mental illness at the time of his misconduct that led to his discharge, if a mental illness was aggravated by military service, and if a mental illness caused the misconduct that led to his discharge. b.It is her opinion that the applicant’s presentation is consistent with a diagnosis ofASPD, as evidenced through is history of failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behavior, impulsive behavior, irritability or aggressive behavior through a history of physical altercations, and behaviors consistent with conduct disorder as a child and adolescent. These traits have been static throughout his life and have not been intensified through is time service in the military. His history is also notable for substance use, including cocaine, marijuana, alcohol, and opiates. 15.The applicant provided a character statement written by his younger brother, whostates: a.He was a U.S. Marine Corps veteran and the second youngest child in theirfamily. The applicant is the second oldest of eight children and the oldest son in a single parent household. The applicant, his brother, was a very rambunctious child, but had a good attitude and a great outlook on life. He was always looking to improve himself. b.When his brother came back after his military service, times were hard for him.Adjusting to life out of the military was difficult. He doesn’t know what his brother encountered in the military, but things were not better when he came back. At the time, he was too young to understand what he was going through, but now he sees he was facing a difficult time. Whatever he dealt with in the military did not help his life. He has now found faith in his life. He has adjusted and is much more grounded. 16.On 9 August 2019, the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) medicaladvisor/psychologist provided an advisory opinion, stating: a.ASPD is characterized by a lifelong pattern of behavior that violates the law andother people’s rights. It is associated with criminal and violent behavior. In this regard, the criminal behavior and disregard for others is the reason for the diagnosis, and not the cause of the criminal behavior. As Dr. S____ the psychiatrist who diagnosed him with ASPD, noted, his criminal behaviors “have not intensified through his time serving in the military.” b.In the applicant’s written statement to the ABCMR, he noted he was on parolewhen he joined the military. His ASPD did not arise as a result of his military service and is not a mitigating factor in his misconduct that led to his conviction and discharge. The available evidence does not support the existence of a behavioral health condition at the time of his discharge and he did meet medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). There is no behavioral health diagnosis that would be a mitigating factor in the misconduct that led to his discharge. A copy of the complete medical advisory was provided to the Board for their review and consideration. 17.On 12 August 2019, the applicant and his Counsel were provided a copy of theadvisory opinion and given an opportunity to submit comments, which Counsel did on 5 September 2019. 18.Counsel’s 5 September 2019 rebuttal states: a.The opinion focuses on medical retention standards and whether or not post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or another condition existed, arising from service and thus mitigating misconduct. However neither is relevant to the applicant’s request for relief and if those factors were at issue, the standards for medical retention were either misinterpreted or the wrong standard was applied. The applicant is not requesting consideration for PTSD that mitigated his misconduct. b.The opinion incorrectly applied current medical retention standards pertaining topersonality disorder. While today’s standards allow for personality disorder if it does not impair performance of duties, those standards in effect at the time of the applicant’s discharge unequivocally did not, as Army Regulation 40-501 stated that personality disorders were a cause for rejection for appointment, enlistment, and induction. An excerpt of Army Regulation 40-501 is provided for reference. c.The advisory opinion also errs in its characterization of whether or not theapplicant had a mental health condition at the time of his discharge. The opinion states that ASPD is characterized by a “lifelong pattern of behavior” and that the applicant’s “ASPD did not arise as a result of his military service,” indicating he did not have this mental health condition. Yet, just two sentences later, the opinion states the applicant’s “documents do not support the existence of a behavioral health condition at the time of discharge.” This is contradictory. If he has a “lifelong” behavioral health condition, as previously stated in the opinion and as shown in his documents, then by definition he had the condition during his service. d.There is a direct nexus between the applicant’s mental health condition andmisconduct, as illustrated by the Army’s own regulations from the era in which he served and discussed in the advisory opinion itself, detailing his problems with authority not raised by the applicant, yet supporting his diagnosis. While there is a condition and a nexus to his misconduct, the applicant did not request consideration under guidance pertaining to PTSD, but for all mental health conditions. e.The applicant is in agreement that ASPD is a “lifelong pattern of behavior” and itis for that reason he requests an upgrade of his discharge under the Department of Defense’s memoranda (Brotzman and Nelson memoranda) about personality disorders. These memoranda require that where there is a personality disorder, a discharge be characterized as honorable unless there are “clear and demonstrable reasons why a fully honorable discharge should not be given.” f.The applicant has a lifelong personality disorder, meaning he had it at the time ofhis discharge. He was not convicted by general court-martial and was not convicted by more than one special court-martial; thus, his discharge falls under the explicit scope of the Brotzman and Nelson memoranda. The applicant’s personality disorder is the determinative factor in his character of discharge and warrants relief. 19.Counsel references two prior applications entertained by the ABCMR pertaining todifferent applicants with cases Counsel feels are similar in nature to the currentapplicant. a.The first case Counsel references is found in Docket Number AR20140021626. (1)The applicant in that case underwent a mental status evaluation on 12October 1964, while still in the Army and was diagnosed with chronic, severe antisocial personality, manifested by negative motivation with recurrent disciplinary difficulties and poor social adjustment, which was found to have existed prior to service and was not in the line of duty. (2)He was subsequently discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation635-209 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Inaptitude or Unsuitability) inNovember1964, due to unsuitability and his service was characterized as general,under honorable conditions. After application to the ABCMR his discharge wassubsequently upgraded by the Board based on the Brotzman and Nelson memoranda. b.The second case Counsel references is found in Docket NumberAR2004103916. (1)The applicant in that case was inducted into the Army of the United States inApril 1969, per his account several months after his release from a mental hospital. Copious mental health records show the applicant received extensive mental health treatment between 1956 and 1965, to include placement in residential schools due to cruel and combative behavior, hospitalization at psychiatric rehabilitation centers, hospitalization at the Nevada State Hospital for a period in excess of 1 year, and other mental health treatments prior to his induction. (2)He was diagnosed with having an adjustment reaction of adolescence as achild and a diagnosis of character disorder and morbid psychosis in July 1963. In December 1968, he was discharged from a family care rehabilitation center as improved with a diagnosis of borderline intellectual capacity with behavioral reaction. Although some of this information was revealed at the applicant’s entrance physical examination in February 1969, not enough of his mental status was revealed at the time, therefore he was deemed medically acceptable for induction. (3)He was convicted by special court-martial on two occasions of being absentwithout leave (AWOL) for extended periods of time, was sentenced to confinement at hard labor, and subsequently went AWOL again, resulting in further charges and his decision to voluntarily request discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of court-martial. The Board determined the applicant would likely not have been found medically fit for induction had the full extent of his mental health diagnoses and hospitalizations been revealed prior to his induction. The Board subsequently upgraded his discharge based on the Brotzman and Nelson memoranda, using the supporting medical documentation showing his mental health diagnoses that existed before and at the time of his service. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1.The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents,evidence in the records and published DoD guidance for consideration of dischargeupgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant’s statement, his record ofservice, the frequency and nature of his misconduct and the reason for his separation.The Board considered the review and conclusions of the medical advising official andthe responses from the counsel. The Board concurred with the opinion of the medicaladvisor and found the available evidence does not support the existence of a behavioralhealth condition at the time of his discharge and he did meet medical retentionstandards; there is no behavioral health diagnosis that would be a mitigating factor in themisconduct that led to his discharge. The Board considered the applicant’s counselciting of cases as being similar to the applicant’s circumstances and referring to theapplicability of the Brotzman and Nelson Memoranda. The Board found that theapplicant’s diagnosis was not determined until 2018 and as the advising official states, itwas the result of the applicant's demonstrated behaviors, differed from those in thecases cited by counsel in terms of medical diagnoses. The applicant did not provideany evidence of post-service achievements and the Board found the statement from hisbrother as insufficient to support a clemency determination. Based on a preponderanceof evidence, the Board determined that the character of service and narrative reason theapplicant received upon separation was not in error or unjust.2.The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered.In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision.As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest ofequity and justice in this case. 3.After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found thatrelief was not warranted. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :XXX :XXX :XXX 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. X 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.On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readinessissued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction ofMilitary/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemencydeterminations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminalsentence. BCM/NRs 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 a discharge, whichmay be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. This guidance does notmandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide BCM/NRs inapplication of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief onthe basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider theprospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relativeseverity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmentalacknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity ofpunishment. Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgradedcharacter of service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normallyshould not result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of pastmedical expenses or similar benefits that might have been received if the originaldischarge had been for the revised reason or had the upgraded servicecharacterization. 2.Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), sets forththe basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a.This regulation was revised on 1 December 1976, following settlement of a civilsuit. 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, 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 were determined to be "clear and demonstrable reasons" which would justify a less than fully honorable discharge. b. 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. c. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. d. Chapter 11, in effect at the time, provided that an enlisted person would be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial. The appellate review was required to be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed.