2. The applicant requests the upgrade of his discharge from general to honorable by reason of medical disability. 3. The applicant states, in effect, the required medical evaluation was not included in the documentation used for consideration for elimination. 4. The applicant’s military records were partially lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire in 1973. 5. The applicant’s available military records show that he was inducted on 26 September 1963, and on 23 December 1963 received a general under honorable conditions discharge. 6. Before discharge, he was referred for psychiatric evaluation. The psychiatrist diagnosed in him an emotional instability reaction. The psychiatrist recommended administrative separation. Subsequently, the commander recommended a discharge based on unsuitability based on the diagnosed character and behavior disorder. Following the recommendation the appropriate authority approved separation with the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. On 23 December 1963 the applicant was separated under honorable conditions, under Army Regulation 635-209, para 3b, unsuitability, character and behavior disorder. 7. Army Regulation 40-501 provides information on medical fitness standards for induction, enlistment, appointment, retention, and related policies and procedures. Paragraph 3-36 of that regulation (adjustment disorders) states that transient, situational maladjustments due to acute or special stress do not render an individual unfit because of physical disability, but may be the basis for administrative separation if recurrent and causing interference with military duty. 8. 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, 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 did not have any medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing. Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation. 2. Accordingly, applicant’s administrative separation on 23 December 1963 with a general discharge was accomplished in accordance with regulations in effect at the time. 3. However, under the current policy it now appears the applicant’s character and behavior disorder warrants upgrading of his discharge to fully honorable, as directed by the above-referenced Army Memorandums. 4. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below. 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 on 23 December 1963. 2. That the Department of the Army issue to the individual concerned an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, in lieu of the General Discharge of the same date now held by him. 3. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION ______________________ CHAIRPERSON