IN THE CASE OF:  

BOARD DATE:  13 July 2022

DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20210014676


APPLICANT’S REQUEST: 

*	Upgrade her general discharge under honorable conditions to honorable
*	Amend the current narrative reason for separation to show, "Secretarial 
Authority," and change her separation program designator (SPD) to "JFF"

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	Exhibit A – Applicant's personal statement
*	Exhibit B – Service and Military Medical Records
*	Exhibit C – Post-Service Medical Records and Department of Veterans Affairs 
(VA) Decisions
*	Exhibit D – Letter of Support
*	Exhibit E – Post-Military Service and Accomplishments
*	Exhibit F – Relevant Psychological Research Articles, Army Health Regulations, 
and Department of Defense (DOD) Instruction (sic, Manual) Number 
1332.18 (Disability Evaluation System (DES) Manual:  General Information and 
Legacy Disability Evaluation System (LDES) Time Standards 

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10 (Armed 
Forces), United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b) (Correction of Military Records:  
Claims Incident Thereto). 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 her 1964 separation was unjust because, at the time, she 
suffered from undiagnosed Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), and her condition 
contributed to her attempted suicide and an isolated incident of disorderly conduct. Her 
leadership failed to take into account the applicant's mental health when conferring her 
character of service, and they did not offer her appropriate mental health care or any 
support her following her suicide attempt. The applicant maintains that the quality of her 
active-duty service and her subsequent contributions to her community warrant the 
Board's upgrade of her discharge to honorable. She provides additional details in a self-
authored statement:

	a.  The applicant writes she was the oldest child and born in while her father served 
in World War II. Although her father rarely spoke of his wartime experiences, he would 
occasionally show her and her siblings his uniform and other memorabilia; her father 
treated his uniform and memorabilia with great reverence, and the children could only 
look but not touch before he safely tucked it all away. The applicant observes, "This was 
my introduction to the military, lasting until I became a teenager."

	b.  The applicant was born into a large extended family. Her paternal great, great 
grandmother was part Native American and born into slavery and her son (the 
applicant's great grandfather) wrote and performed songs that, today, are stored in the 
U.S. Library of Congress. The applicant describes her early years as happy and states 
she felt special and adored by her family; in school, she participated in many 
extracurricular activities and was an overachieving student. On the weekends and 
during summer, she worked a number of jobs to help her pay for things she needed for 
school. As she considered what might come after high school, female Army and Air 
Force service members visited the applicant's high school and they spoke of serving in 
the military as an option for entering college. The prospect of military service excited the 
applicant, and she began to give it serious thought. 

	c.  The applicant affirms she has always been very altruistic, and she felt a calling to 
serve; she saw many things around her that needed to change and she wanted to help. 
She also hoped to find something fulfilling that offered more than just a paycheck, and, 
while she initially considered teaching and social work, she ultimately concluded these 
fields were not as "open and well-rounded as I needed. Keeping in mind, during that 
period, as a Negro, I didn't have many options." As she thought about her father's 
service, the applicant decided that joining the military would offer her what she sought. 
From reading books, she had become aware of other parts of the world, and she gained 
a rudimentary command of the French language. She learned, from talking with 
recruiters, that the military could station her in France, and she found that news thrilling, 
so, at 18, she took a bus to Atlanta and, on 8 August 1962, she enlisted in the Women's 
Army Corps. 

	d.  The applicant notes that her first impressions of military life linked her to 
something she liked very much; there are rules for everything, and she adds, "I like 
rules." The diversity of the military also drew her, and she started meeting people from 
the different ethnicities and cultures she had read about and, while not all of her 
encounters were pleasant, she nonetheless learned from those interactions and found 
them interesting and exciting. The applicant goes on to describe her experiences in 
basic combat training and advanced individual training (AIT) and notes, during AIT, she 
scored the highest grade of anyone in the class on one of the tests. 

	e.  Following her graduation from AIT and the award of military occupational 
specialty (MOS) 723.10 (Communications Center Specialist), the applicant transferred 
to Fort Sill, OK, where she worked mainly with civilians; her coworkers treated her 
courteously but only spoke to her when "absolutely necessary." From Fort Sill, orders 
relocated her to her dream assignment in France. On her arrival, the Army placed her in 
a communications center, and she found that she enjoyed working there. In addition, 
she met many new friends from both the U.S. and France, and she became aware that 
she was growing as a person and learning many new things; she loved French food and 
her ability to travel around Europe.

	f.  Up to this point, the applicant cannot recall any instance that she or anyone might 
construe to being detrimental to her physical or mental well-being; however, in 
November 1963, she became depressed, and, soon, she stopped sleeping. 

		(1)  After a few days without sleep, she asked to see a doctor; the doctor 
prescribed her a barbiturate called Seconal. The applicant recalls feeling tired and 
frustrated, and she could not understand what was making her feel so badly; she 
declares that, at the time, she felt happier than ever and was not homesick, and she 
even considered remaining in France at the end of her enlistment.

		(2)  "In between when the doctor explained that the prescription would make me 
sleep and on my way home, I made the decision to take all of the pills. I needed peace 
and rest and thought I would find it in death. When I arrived home, I took all of the pills 
and went to my bed. I recall that the next thing I felt was cold water from the shower. I 
could not stand alone and soon blacked out. I later learned that some of my friends had 
found me, and figured out what had happened from the empty pill bottle. They called for 
help and (were) told to put me in the shower until help arrived." "I remember being 
surprised and disappointed to wake up right back where I started. I was told that I 
almost didn't make it."

	g.  The applicant believes medical authority hospitalized her for a few weeks, but no 
one ever told her what was wrong with her or how to fix things so she could feel better. 

		(1)  Each time she has reflected on the Army's lack of attention, the pain and 
anger has grown; she was only 19 years old, and there was no continued therapy, no 
plan of action, and no advice or assistance. The applicant questions why the doctor who 
prescribed the Seconal did not perform a more in-depth evaluation of her and try to 
understand her situation more fully before giving her that medication. She notes that, in 
time, she began to feel better and learned how to cover up her depression. Upon her 
release from the hospital, they assigned the applicant to perform clerical duties; she 
never reentered the communications center, and she viewed this as a punishment. 

		(2)  At some point in late February or early March, the commander called her in 
to say a decision had been made to discharge her; he gave no reason, and the 
applicant's recollection of that day is a blur as she recalls seeing her dreams fall apart. 
The applicant declares she lacks the words to express the intensity of pain and suffering 
she has felt over the years about how the Army separated her; she had always believed 
there was an "unspoken covenant; I would do my best in the service, and they would, in 
turn, protect me. They didn't. I became ill, they did not help me and kicked me out 
instead." "In the end, my Commanding Officer told me that I would not receive any 
benefits from the Army after leaving because I had not served long enough to earn 
them." "In March 1964, I was shipped from Paris to Fort Hamilton, Brooklyn, NY and, on 
19 March 1976, I was discharged from the U.S. Women's Army Corps." 

	h.  The applicant describes the difficulties she faced following her discharge, as well 
as her ongoing struggles with depression. She decided to remain in because she had 
not told her family about her discharge; she felt she could not face them. "This began a 
lifetime of lies that covered my suicide attempt and my episodes with depression lasting 
from 1964 (to) present. The lies brought a lot of guilt." In 1968, at a point when she felt 
really down, she reached out to a social worker and disclosed she felt suicidal; the 
social worker had the applicant admitted to a mental institution for several weeks, but 
nothing helped and they ended up only turning her life upside-down. The applicant 
promise herself she would never again tell her secret to anyone.

	i.  After 1968, the applicant became active in her community. "My professional and 
volunteer career (has) spanned about 50 years. I dedicated myself to service, through 
my belief that my life was a strong commitment to purpose and mission." The applicant 
served as the Chief Executive Officer/Executive Director for non-profit agencies, with a 
concentration in Human Services and Community Development. In addition, she was a 
member of several Boards of Directors, during which she was able to help several of the 
people living within eight of neighborhoods, and she addressed numerous issues that 
had citywide, statewide, and national implications. She retired in 2010 due to health 
concerns, but her depression did not retire. Through a person she met at an event, she 
learned, to her surprise, she might be eligible for VA benefits; after some trepidation, 
she finally went to the VA and discovered her eligibility for healthcare. In 2017, a VA 
psychiatrist diagnosed her with MDD.

	j.  The applicant observes, "If I had not had other strengths back then, if I had given 
in further to depression, my life would have been a tragic loss. At 75 and a great 
grandmother, now, I hope to die, naturally, with an HONORABLE DISCHARGE. I think 
all the years I've suffered has earned me this recognition."

3.  Counsel argues the applicant is entitled to an honorable character of service for 
several reasons:

	a.  The applicant meets the criteria established in Federal law and the "Kurta 
Memo." A VA psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant with MDD, and the VA subsequently 
awarded the applicant a 70 percent disability rating. The applicant's MDD started during 
her active duty service, and the MDD mitigates the applicant's suicide attempt and the 
one isolated incidence of disorderly conduct. 

	b.  Irrespective of her service connected MDD, the applicant is entitled to an 
upgrade. If the Army had separated the applicant under current policies, her discharge 
would be less prejudicial. Additionally, the overall quality of the applicant's service is 
consistent with the Army's requirements for an honorable character of service, despite 
the isolated instance of misconduct. Further, the noteworthiness of her remarkable post-
military community service and personal achievements "demonstrate the honorableness 
of her character." 

4.  The applicant's service records show:

	a.  On 25 July 1962, the applicant's mother signed a DD Form 373 (Consent, 
Declaration of Parent or Legal Guardian); the applicant's mother affirmed the applicant's 
date of birth and certified her consent for the applicant to enlist in the Women's Army 
Corps; the form noted the applicant's parents had separated and the father's address 
was unknown. 

	b.  On 8 August 1962, the applicant enlisted for a term of 3 years into the Women's 
Army Corps of the Regular Army; she was 18 years old. Following initial entry training 
and the award of MOS 723.10, orders assigned her to Fort Sill, and she arrived at her 
unit, on 27 February 1963. Effective 1 May 1963, the applicant's leadership promoted 
her to private first class (PFC)/E-3. Orders subsequently reassigned the applicant to a 
U.S. Army Major Signal Relay Center in France, and she arrived at her unit,
on 6 September 1963. 

	c.  On 1 November 1963, medical authority admitted the applicant to the supporting 
military hospital after the applicant ingested 19 100-milligram capsules of Seconal. The 
military police (MP) initiated an investigation into the applicant's attempted suicide, and 
the MP investigator obtained the applicant's suicide note and interviewed the applicant 
and witnesses.

		(1)  The applicant addressed her suicide note to three fellow Soldiers, and the 
note read:  

		(a)  "Upon my departure from the Earth, physically...If something happens (fatal) 
to me as a result of the consumption of these pills, Please don't think I'm (cutoff) or that 
I was insane). It's just that I can't stand the mental strain the world has on me anymore 
(and that) I've taken all my life."

		(b)  "Believe me, I love life, but I can't take (it). I want no one to think the blame is 
theirs...I'm responsible for everything that has happened to me."

		(2)  On 5 November 1963, the applicant provided the MP investigator a sworn 
statement. The applicant related that she had been feeling bad for quite a while, even 
back in the States, and, on her arrival in France, she started having nightmares about 
drowning and people on the bank laughing and doing nothing to help her; after 
experiencing these nightmares, the applicant decided she would take her own life. 

		(a)  She went to see a doctor at the military hospital and told him about her 
dreams, and that she was unable to sleep; he gave her a bottle of capsules and told her 
to take one but no more than two; however, the applicant decided to take them all. 

		(b)  On her return to the unit, the applicant went to Specialist Four (SP4) room; 
the applicant took some of the capsules, after which SP4 took the bottle away from her. 
Then the applicant wrote a letter while still in SP4 room, and she promised SP4 she 
would not take any more pills; SP4 gave her back the bottle, but when the applicant 
returned to her own room, she consumed the rest of the pills. 

		(c)  The applicant stated she really wanted this to be "my last sleep. I did burn a 
letter in my room, but this had nothing to do with my feelings. I have felt that no one 
cares for me and have not cared to live. The strain of the world has been too much and 
I really don't care to live now."

		(3)  SP4 provided a sworn statement, in which she recounted how the applicant 
had come into her room after returning from the hospital. The applicant showed the pills 
the doctor had prescribed; SP4 looked at the bottle and saw it was full. 

		(a)  The applicant started to cry, then jumped up and ran into the bathroom; when 
SP4 tried to enter, the applicant held the bathroom door shut. Together with another girl, 
SP4 was able to open the bathroom door, and the applicant then went into the bathtub 
and took four or five more pills; at that point, SP4 took the bottle away from the 
applicant.

		(b)  The applicant asked for an envelope, some paper, and a pen; the applicant 
then wrote a note, addressed the envelope to SP4 and two other Soldiers, and placed 
the envelope in her purse. The applicant asked SP4 to return the bottle, promising not 
to take any more pills, so SP4 gave her the bottle and the applicant left. Because the 
applicant had left something in SP4 room, SP4 went to the applicant's room to return 
the item; when she entered the room, SP4 noticed the empty bottle on the dresser. The 
applicant kept insisting the empty bottle was not the one with the medications and that 
she had hidden the rest of the pills, but SP4 believed otherwise. 

		(c)  The applicant took the note from her purse and showed it to PFC then put it 
back. SP4 helped the applicant stay awake, and she reported what had happened to 
the first sergeant (1SG); she commented that the applicant had been upset about some 
bad dreams she had been having, but the applicant did not seem to be extremely 
depressed. 

		(4)  PFC the applicant's roommate, stated the applicant entered their room after 
returning from the hospital and was crying. When PFC asked the applicant what was 
wrong, she responded, "Nothing." The applicant then disclosed the doctor had 
prescribed some pills so she could sleep and had told her to only take one, but not more 
than two; the applicant then said she had taken all of the pills and, when asked why, the 
applicant responded that no one cared and that no one would miss her anyway. The 
applicant had a letter in her hand and said she better burn the letter in case something 
went wrong; the applicant tore up the letter and burned the pieces in an ashtray. She 
then laid down on her bed. PFC helped to keep the applicant awake; in addition, PFC 
reported the applicant had previously told her about her nightmares, but, lately, PFC 
had not noted anything unhappy about the applicant.

		(5)  PFC verified she had known the applicant for about 10 months; they first met 
at Fort Sill, prior to their reassignment to France. PFC had always regarded the 
applicant as a "fairly stable, solid individual." 

		(a)  On 1 November 1963, as PFC was getting ready for work, someone came to 
her room and said something was wrong with the applicant; when PFC got to the 
applicant's room, she noticed the applicant had a bunch of letters out. 

		(b)  The applicant explained a doctor had given her a bottle of pills, and she had 
taken the whole bottle. The applicant started mumbling and said that no one cared and 
this might be her last sleep; PFC told her that her friends cared.

		(c)  The applicant showed PFC the letter and said one of the friends named on 
the envelope should get the letter if anything happened to her; then she put the letter 
back in her purse. PFC told the applicant to stay awake until she returned from work; 
PFC  then left because the bus was waiting. PFC told the MP investigator she had not 
had a chance to see the applicant much lately because their shifts were different. 

	d.  On 29 November 1963, a female captain (Captain (CPT)  conducted a formal 
line-of-duty (LOD) investigation into the applicant's attempted suicide. 

		(1)  On 8 November 1963, the applicant rendered a sworn statement. The 
applicant said she had attempted to take her own life because she had been unhappy 
most of her life and had been having unpleasant dreams lately. 

		(a)  On 31 October 1963, the applicant went to the supporting dispensary and 
made a 4 November appointment to see a psychiatrist. She also received sleeping pills 
that she was to take until she underwent further treatment. 

		(b)  The applicant said that thoughts of her younger siblings had been disturbing 
her; she was the oldest child, and her parents no longer lived together. The applicant 
added that, at 16, she had attempted suicide by consuming a bottle of pills and, for a 
short while, she had received psychiatric care.

		(2)  On 21 November 1963, Major (MAJ) Chief, Neuropsychiatry Services, 
provided a statement for the LOD investigation. MAJ confirmed he had conducted a 
psychiatric evaluation while the applicant was a patient at the military hospital. MAJ 
concluded the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, 
and could adhere to the right. His diagnoses were:  

*	Emotional instability reaction, LOD-No, EPTS (existed prior to service), not 
due to misconduct
*	Poisoning, acute, n.o.c., due to Seconal, secondary to diagnosis number 1, 
LOD-Yes

		(3)  In the remarks section of her report, the LOD investigating officer briefly 
summarized the events pertaining to the applicant's attempted suicide, as well as the 
information disclosed by the applicant. CPT concluded, "The attempted act of suicide 
was premeditated and intentional, as evidenced by (the) note left by [applicant] and her 
verbal declaration that she planned to take her own life. Although the medical officer 
who admitted EW (enlisted woman) to the [hospital] stated she was not mentally sound, 
this opinion was not upheld by the psychiatrist who treated her. [Applicant] was mentally 
sound at the time of her attempted suicide." (The Department of the Army, Office of The 
Adjutant General subsequently declared the applicant's attempted suicide as "Not-In-
Line-of-Duty – Due to Own Misconduct").

	e.  On 10 December 1963, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment, under the 
provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for behaving in a disorderly 
manner, on 5 December 1963. 

	f.  On 10 December 1963, MAJ Chief, Neuropsychiatry Services, completed an AE 
(Army Europe) Form 3087 (Report of Psychiatric Evaluation) pertaining to the applicant.

		(1)  Pertinent History. "This 19-year-old was seen in psychiatric evaluation during 
her hospitalization on the NP Service, [military hospital], in November 1963. She was 
admitted to this hospital following a suicidal act (she took an overdose of sleeping pills). 
(Once before at age of 16, she committed a suicidal act. At the time, she ingested 
aspirin). According to her description, home life was not stable. Her parents separated 
some years ago. She (applicant) resided primarily with her mother following the parents' 
separation and attempted to aid in the care of her younger siblings (she experiences 
conflictual feelings in her relationship with her mother and believes that her presence is 
necessary for the care of her siblings). She believes that this unstable environment was, 
in part at least, the cause of her first suicidal act and played some role in the second 
one. In addition to this, her relationship with her peers, male and female, has resulted in 
fluctuating emotional attitudes on her part, with resultant impulsive behavior."

		(2)  Mental Status. "She was alert, oriented, not particularly tense or anxious. 
She is mildly depressed at times. There is no evidence of use of psychotic thinking or 
behavior." 

		(3)  Recommendation. "Whether or not this is separated from the service is a 
command decision, however, it is recommended that she be separated from service 
UP (under the provisions of) AR (Army Regulation) 635-209 (Personnel Separations – 
Discharge – Unsuitability)."

	g.  On 17 January 1964, the applicant's company commander requested the 
separation authority approve the applicant's separation, under the provisions of 
paragraph 3 (Applicability – General), AR 635-209. The commander stated, "The 
instability of the individual and the chance of a repeated attempt to take her life warrants 
her discharge from the Military Service. The constant danger of this reoccurrence has 
an unfavorable effect on the morale and well-being of those she lives and works with." 

	h.  In an undated statement, the applicant acknowledged she had received 
counseling advising her of the basis for the separation action; in addition, the applicant 
affirmed she had been afforded the opportunity to request counsel, but she declined. 
The applicant waived her right to a hearing before a board of officers and did not desire 
to submit a statement in her own behalf.

	i.  On 28 January 1964, the separation authority approved the commander's 
separation recommendation and directed the applicant's general discharge under 
honorable conditions, per AR 635-209; in addition, the separation authority ordered the 
applicant's DD Form 214 to show an SPN (separation program number) of "46A" 
(Apathy (Lack of Appropriate Interest), Defective Attitudes, and Inability to Expend Effort 
Constructively).

	j.  On 19 March1964, orders separated the applicant with a general discharge under 
honorable conditions; her DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of 
Transfer or Discharge) shows she completed 1 year, 7 months, and 12 days of her 
3-year enlistment contract. Item 26 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, 
Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) states, "None." 

	k.  Section 2 (Chronological Record of Military Service) on the applicant's DA Form 
24 (Service Record) shows, from date of enlistment until August 1963, the applicant's 
leadership rated her conduct and efficiency as "Excellent." For the period 6 September 
1963 to 11 March 1964, her chain of command rated her conduct as "Good" and her 
efficiency as "Fair."

5.  Counsel provides six exhibits in support of the application; the exhibits include 
copies of the applicant's military personnel and medical records and post-service 
medical records. In addition, counsel submits a letter of support from one of the 
applicant's grandchildren; 86 pages, documenting the applicant's significant post-
service contributions to her community; and articles and regulations relevant to the 
applicant's behavioral health condition.

	a.  A VA Rating Decision, dated 23 March 2020, shows the VA awarded the 
applicant a 70 percent disability rating for MDD, effective 29 October 2019.

	b.  The applicant's grandson describes the applicant as a stalwart family leader who 
provides "unbound(ed) love to all of us; no matter what mistakes we make, we know 
she's still there for us." The applicant's grandson admits that, when his grandmother 
was still working, the family often resented her strong ties to the community; "there were 
meetings after meetings and phone calls and writing proposals and things we didn't fully 
understand. We later learned to appreciate, respect her work, and love her for it." The 
family especially liked it when people said things like, "She's great!"; "a legend"; and 
"She helped me a lot." He concludes that his grandmother spent more than 50 years 
serving others, and the family is proud of her and her contributions.

6.  Clemency guidance to the Boards for Correction of Military/Navy Records (BCM/NR) 
does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in 
application of their equitable relief authority to ensure each case will be assessed on its 
own merits. In determining whether to grant relief BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect 
for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity 
of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental 
acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of 
punishment. This includes consideration of changes in policy, whereby a service 
member under the same circumstances today would reasonably be expected to receive 
a more favorable outcome. 

	a.  AR 635-209, in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for the 
separation of Soldiers who were considered unsuitable for continue military service. 
Commanders could separate Soldiers under this provision when the commanders 
determined it was unlikely the Soldiers would develop sufficiently to participate in further 
military training/become a satisfactory Soldier; this included Soldiers who displayed the 
following:

*	Inaptitude, due to a general lack of adaptability, want of readiness or skill, 
unhandiness, or an inability to learn
*	Character and behavior disorders, as defined in the Joint Armed Forces 
Nomenclature and Method of Recording Psychiatric Conditions – 1949, and 
based on disorders of intelligence and transient personality disorders 
resulting from acute or special stress
*	Apathy, defective attitudes, and/or the inability to expend effort constructively

	b.  AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – General Provisions for Discharge and 
Release), in effect at the time, outlined characters of service for enlisted personnel. 
Paragraph 9 (Honorable Discharge) stated an honorable discharge was a separation 
from the Army with honor. Separation authorities conditioned the issuance of an 
honorable discharge upon proper military behavior, and proficient and industrious 
performance of duty, giving due regard to the rank or grade held and the capabilities of 
the individual concerned. The Soldier had to meet the following qualifications:

*	Conduct ratings of at least "Good"; Efficiency rating of at least "Fair"
*	No convictions by a general court-martial and not convicted more than once 
by a special court-martial

	c.  AR 635-205 Personnel Separations – Discharge and Release – Convenience of 
the Government), in effect at the time, stated, in paragraph 2 (General), that the 
separation of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the government was the 
Secretary of the Army's prerogative and could only be implemented by his authority. 

		(1)  Such separations occurred at the Secretary of the Army's discretion and the 
Secretary determined the type of discharge and applied his authority either to an 
individual case or by an order applicable to all cases specified within the order. 
According to AR 635-5 (Separation Documents), then in effect, the appropriate SPN for 
this type of separation was 21L (Separation for other Good and Sufficient Reasons 
when Determined by Headquarters, Department of the Army). 

		(2)  The current version of AR 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative 
Separations) places Secretarial Authority separations in chapter 15 (Secretarial Plenary 
Authority), wherein it states: 

		(a) Separations under chapter 15 are the prerogative of Secretary of the Army 
and are exercised sparingly, used when no other provisions of AR 635-200 apply, and 
will be limited to cases where the early separation of a Soldier is clearly in the best 
interest of the Army. These separations will be effective only if approved in writing by 
Secretary of the Army or an approved designee. 

		(b)  The service of Soldiers separated under Secretarial Plenary Authority will be 
characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions, as warranted by their military 
records; per AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD)), currently in effect, the 
assigned SPD is "JFF."

7.  Published guidance to the BCM/NRs clearly indicates that the guidance is not 
intended to interfere or impede on the Board's statutory independence. The Board will 
determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether it 
supports relief or not. In reaching its determination, the Board shall consider the 
applicant's petition, available records and/or submitted documents in support of the 
petition.  

8.  MEDICAL REVIEW: 

The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting 
documents and the applicant’s military service records. Her hardcopy medical record 
was not available for review. The Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology 
Application (AHLTA) & Health Artifacts Image Solutions (HAIMS) were not in use at the 
time of her service. A review of her service record indicates an investigation was 
conducted regarding her suicide attempt. In a sworn statement dated 8 Nov 1963, the 
applicant reported a prior suicide attempt at the age of 16 and treatment by a 
psychiatrist. A psychiatric evaluation report dated 10 December 1963 indicated the 
applicant was diagnosed with Emotional instability reaction which existed prior to her 
service. He determined it was not in line of duty and not misconduct. In a separate 
statement, the psychiatrist noted her condition existed prior to service and her suicide 
attempt was not line of duty not due to misconduct. The investigating officer determined 
her suicide attempt was not in line of duty due to her own misconduct. Her separation 
packet indicates there were 2 psychiatric hospitalizations 1 November - 5 December 
1963 and 6-9 December 1963. Her disorderly behavior occurred on the day she was 
discharged from her first psychiatric hospitalization. A review of JLV indicates the 
applicant has a service-connected disability rating of 70% for Major Depressive Disorder 
(MDD). In accordance with the 3 Sep 2014 Secretary of Defense Liberal Guidance 
Memorandum and the 25 Aug 2017, Clarifying Guidance there is documentation to 
support behavioral health diagnosis at the time of her discharge. Given her prior suicide 
attempt prior to military service indicates she did not meet accession standards. While 
there are no specifics regarding her disorderly behavior, it is likely there were connected 
to her depression. Her MDD is a mitigating factor for the conduct that led to her 
discharge. 
    a.  Kurta Questions
(1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate 
the discharge? 
   (a) Yes
(2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service?  
   (A) Yes
(3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 
   (a) Yes
(4) Does the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? 
   (a) Yes

BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found the 
relief was warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's record of service, 
documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and 
standard review based on law, policy and regulation, and published Department of 
Defense guidance for liberal and clemency determinations requests for upgrade of his 
characterization of service.  Upon review of the applicant’s petition, available military 
records and the medical review, the Board concurred with the medical advisory opinion 
finding sufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors for the behavior to weigh a 
clemency determination. The Board found that relief was warranted based upon 
guidance for consideration of discharge upgrade requests. Therefore, the Board granted 
relief to upgrade the applicant’s discharge to honorable and correct her narrative reason 
and separation code.

2.  Prior to closing the case, the Board did note the analyst of record administrative 
notes below, and recommended the corrections be completed to more accurately depict 
the military service of the applicant.



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:

In addition to the administrative notes annotated by the Analyst of Record (below the 
signature), 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 reissuing the applicant’s 
DD Form 214 for the period ending 11 April 2008 showing her character of service as 
honorable and the narrative reason as “Secretarial Authority,” with the respective 
separation program designator (SPD) code updated to "JFF."

		 

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):  

1.  Army Regulation (AR) 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, stated 
the DD Form 214 was to list all decorations, service medals, campaign credits, and 
badges awarded or authorized.

2.  AR 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the National Defense Service Medal was 
awarded for honorable active-duty service between 1 January 1961 and 14 August 
1974.  As a result, amend the applicant's DD Form 214, ending 19 March 1964, by 
adding the National Defense Service Medal.


REFERENCES:

1.  Title 10, USC, 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 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.

2.  Title 10, United State Code, section 1556 provides the Secretary of the Army shall 
ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by the Army Review Boards Agency 
(ARBA) is provided a copy of all correspondence and communications, including 
summaries of verbal communications, with any agencies or persons external to agency 
or board, or a member of the staff of the agency or Board, that directly pertains to or has 
material effect on the applicant's case, except as authorized by statute.

3.  AR 635-209, in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for the 
separation of Soldiers who were considered unsuitable for continue military service. 
Commanders could separate Soldiers under this provision when the commanders 
determined it was unlikely the Soldiers would develop sufficiently to participate in further 
military training/become a satisfactory Soldier; this included Soldiers who displayed the 
following:

*	Inaptitude, due to a general lack of adaptability, want of readiness or skill, 
unhandiness, or an inability to learn
*	Character and behavior disorders, as defined in the Joint Armed Forces 
Nomenclature and Method of Recording Psychiatric Conditions – 1949, and 
based on disorders of intelligence and transient personality disorders 
resulting from acute or special stress
*	Apathy, defective attitudes, and/or the inability to expend effort constructively
*	Enuresis, whether the result of organic or psychiatric conditions; while its 
presence rarely necessitated separation, it could render the individual 
unsuitable for continued military service
*	Alcoholism, when of a chronic nature, ;and when it was apparent the Soldier 
had become ineffective and had not responded to the usual rehabilitative 
measures, or was not motivated to take advantage of available therapeutic 
resources
*	Homosexuality (Class III), where there is evidence of homosexual tendencies 
but no overt homosexual acts

4.  AR 635-200, in effect at the time, outlined characters of service for enlisted 
personnel. Paragraph 9 (Honorable Discharge) stated an honorable discharge was a 
separation from the Army with honor. Separation authorities conditioned the issuance of 
an honorable discharge upon proper military behavior, and proficient and industrious 
performance of duty, giving due regard to the rank or grade held and the capabilities of 
the individual concerned. The Soldier had to meet the following qualifications:

*	Conduct ratings of at least "Good"; Efficiency rating of at least "Fair"
*	No convictions by a general court-martial
*	Not convicted more than once by a special court-martial
*	Notwithstanding the above-stated criteria, disqualifying entries could be 
outweighed by subsequent honest and faithful service over a greater period; 
additionally, careful consideration was given to the nature of the Soldier's 
misconduct and, in cases involving court-martial, any sentence adjudged

5.  AR 635-205 Personnel Separations – Discharge and Release – Convenience of the 
Government), in effect at the time, stated, in paragraph 2 (General), that the separation 
of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the government was the Secretary of the 
Army's prerogative and could only be implemented by his authority. 

	a.  Such separations occurred at the Secretary of the Army's discretion and the 
Secretary determined the type of discharge and applied his authority either to an 
individual case or by an order applicable to all cases specified within the order. 
According to AR 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, the appropriate 
SPN was 21L (Separation for other Good and Sufficient Reasons when Determined by 
Headquarters, Department of the Army). 

	b.  The current version of AR 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative 
Separations) addresses Secretarial Authority separations in chapter 15 (Secretarial 
Plenary Authority), wherein it states: 

		(1) Separations under chapter 15 are the prerogative of Secretary of the Army 
and are exercised sparingly, used when no other provisions of AR 635-200 apply, and 
will be limited to cases where the early separation of a Soldier is clearly in the best 
interest of the Army. These separations will be effective only if approved in writing by 
Secretary of the Army or an approved designee. 

		(2)  The service of Soldiers separated under Secretarial Plenary Authority will be 
characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military 
records; per AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD)), currently in effect, the 
assigned SPD is "JFF."

6.  On 25?August 2017, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBs 
and BCM/NRs when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their 
discharges due in whole or in part to: mental health conditions, including PTSD; 
Traumatic Brain Injury; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Boards are to give liberal 
consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is 
based in whole or in part to those conditions or experiences. The guidance further 
describes evidence sources and criteria and requires Boards to consider the conditions 
or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for misconduct that led to 
the discharge.  

7.  On 25?July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 
issued guidance to Military DRBs and BCM/NRs regarding equity, injustice, or clemency 
determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal 
sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial. 
However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-
martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may 
be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice. 

	a.  This 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, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs 
shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy 
changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, 
official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, 
and uniformity of punishment. 

	b.  Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of 
service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not 
result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses 
or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for 
the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization.  

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20210014676


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1