PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:      11 March 1998 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC97-10626

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr.	Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr.	Fred W. Eichorn		Member	
	Mr.	Robert W. Garrett		Member	

	Also present, without vote, were:

	Mr.	Karl F. Schneider		Acting Director	
	Mr.	Joseph A. Adriance		Examiner	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The Applicant requests, in effect, that his general/under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).  He contends, in effect, that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on his getting a bad case of spinal meningitis and being pronounced legally dead by the medical staff who treated him.  He also claims the meningitis was caused by an allergic reaction to penicillin.

3.  On 23 January 1964 the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States for a period of 2 years at age 
22 and was sent to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri to attend basic training.

4.  On 10 February 1964 the applicant was hospitalized for an asthmatic condition and remained in that status until he was released on 12 March 1964.  The applicant’s unit commander made a statement that immediately upon his return from the hospital the applicant began to act in an extremely childish manner which took form in the following behavior characteristics:  crying, pouting, and complaining of being unable to breath.  This increased to such an extent that he was returned to the hospital later the same day.

5.  On 16 March 1964 the applicant received a psychiatric examination which resulted in a diagnosis that indicated the applicant had a severe character and behavior disorder.  The psychiatrist conducting the examination indicated that the applicant’s condition was not disabling and presented no disqualifying mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant discharge for a medical disability; however, he did recommend that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of paragraph 3b of Army Regulation (AR) 635-209.
The psychiatric recommendation was based on a determination that the applicant’s condition was not amenable to hospitalization, treatment, training, transfer to another organization, or reclassification, and that his illness would continue and he would not be of value to the military.

6.  On 23 March 1964 the applicant’s unit commander, based on the aforementioned psychiatric evaluation, initiated separation action on the applicant, under the provisions of AR 635-209 for unsuitability and recommended he be issued a GD.

7.  Also on 23 March 1964, the applicant acknowledged that he had been notified by his commanding officer that his discharge was being recommended and completed his election of rights.  On this document the applicant waived his right to the following: military counsel; a hearing before a board of officers; and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

8.  On 30 March 1964 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge for unsuitability, under the provisions of paragraph 3b, (SPN 264-Character and Behavior Disorder)of AR 635-209, and directed he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.  Accordingly, on 8 April 1964 the applicant was discharged after completing 2 months and 
16 days of active military service.

9.  Department of the Army message # 302221Z, March 1976 changed “character and behavior disorder” to “personality disorder”.

10.  AR 635-200, currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-13 provides, in pertinent part, when separation is because of a personality disorder, the service of a soldier separated per this paragraph will be characterized as honorable unless an entry level separation is required under chapter 3, section III.  Characterization of service under honorable conditions may be awarded to a soldier who has been convicted of an offense by general court-martial 
or who has been convicted by more than one special 
court-martial in the current enlistment, period of obligated service, or any extension thereof.

11.  Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 1332.28, dated 
11 August 1982, subject: Discharge Review Board Procedures and Standards, establishes uniform policies, procedures, and standards for the review of discharges or dismissals under Title 10, United States Code, section 1553, and applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Military Departments.  Section 4 of that Directive sets forth the objectives for discharge review.  It provides that a discharge shall be deemed proper unless it is determined that a change in policy by the military service of which the applicant was a member, made expressly retroactive to the type of discharge under consideration, requires a change in the discharge.  Furthermore, a discharge shall be deemed to be equitable unless there is substantial doubt the applicant would have received the same discharge if relevant current policies and procedures had been available to the applicant at the time the discharge was considered, even though the discharge was determined to have been otherwise equitable and proper at the time of issuance.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s record of service does not meet the criteria for an under honorable conditions discharge by current Army regulations.

2.  Had the ADRB reviewed the applicant’s discharge under DOD Directive 1332.28, it is reasonable to presume that his discharge would have been upgraded based on the application of the current regulation for discharges because of a personality disorder.

3.  Although DOD Directive 1332.28 provides policy for review of discharges for Discharge Review Boards, it appears appropriate that this Board adopt and apply the standards set forth in this Directive for this particular case.

4.  Accordingly, in view of the current standards for discharges issued because of a personality disorder, a discharge under honorable conditions was unduly harsh and unjust.  It would now be appropriate to correct the inequity and issue the applicant an Honorable Discharge.

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 8 April 1964.

2.  That the Department of the Army issue to the individual concerned an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 8 April 1964, in lieu of the discharge under honorable conditions of the same date now held by him.

BOARD VOTE:  

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

		                           
		        CHAIRPERSON