2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.  

3.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted, at age 17, on 26 May 1969 for 3 years.  After completing basic and advanced training he reported to his next permanent assignment in Germany.

4.  On 4 February 1970 he received nonjudicial punishment for failure to go to his place of duty.  On 25 June 1970 he received another nonjudicial punishment for failure to go to his place of duty and for failure to obey a lawful order.

5.  On 12 August 1970 he was convicted by a summary court-martial for AWOL from 13 to 18 July 1970.

6.  On 2 October 1970 the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation.  He was found to suffer from a character and behavior disorder.

7. On 7 October 1970 he was advised that action was being initiated to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, unsuitability.  The recommendation was based on his “constant rebellion, failure to conform to military life. . .” and the recommendation of a psychiatrist.  The applicant waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers.  

8.  On 9 October 1970 the commander recommended that the applicant be eliminated from the service.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

9.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 26 October 1970 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability due to a character and behavior disorder.

10.  There is no evidence that the applicant made application to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15 year statue of limitations.


11.  Army Regulation 635-200 was revised on 1 December 1976, following settlement of a civil suit. Thereafter, the type of discharge and the character of service was 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.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with regulations then in effect.

2.  However, it now appears that the facts and circumstances of the applicant’s case meet the criteria of the above-referenced Army memorandums, and his discharge should, therefore, be upgraded to fully honorable.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was separated from the service with an Honorable Discharge Certificate on 26 October 1970.

2.  That the Department of the Army issue to him an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, 26 October 1970, in lieu of the general discharge of the same date now held by him. 

BOARD VOTE:  

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




		                           
		        CHAIRPERSON