2. The applicant requests that his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

3. The applicant states that he had good service until 1975, and that he had problems with drugs. Counsel contends that the applicant sought help prior to his incidents that lead to his release to either help him cope with the attitude he was developing or to assist him in leaving the service; that, at the time of his service, the programs and procedures in effect did not identify people such as the applicant prior to the point where they were getting into trouble as they do now; that the applicant would have been identified earlier as unsuitable for service prior to the disciplinary problems under current considerations do and would have been released under more favorable conditions; and that clemency and compassion should be afforded the applicant.

4. He was born on 11 December 1953. He received a high school GED. On 2 February 1972, he enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-1, for 3 years. His Armed Forces Qualification Test score was 65 (Category II). He was advanced to pay grades E-2, E-3, and E-4 effective 2 June, 16 June 1972, and 1 March 1973, respectively. His military occupational specialty was 76Y20 (Armor/Unit Supply Specialist).

5. On 17 December 1973, he reenlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-4, for 4 years.

6. During the period 11 September 1974 through 25 March 1975, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on two occasions for wrongfully and falsely have in his possession and use with intent to defraud or deceive the U.S. Government by using another's meal card pass, then knowing the same to be false and unauthorized because he was on separate rations; for going, without authority, from his appointed place of duty; and for disobeying a lawful order of a superior noncommissioned officer. His imposed punishments included a reduction to pay grade E-3 (suspended), a reprimand, and forfeitures.

---

7. On 28 February 1975, the applicant was seen in the outpatient psychiatric department for the adjusting of sleeping medication and alcohol. He was not admitted to the "detox" service, but rather was referred to the Mental Hygiene Service for follow-up counseling.

8. A statement, dated 21 March 1975, by a psychiatrist indicated that the applicant had a complete psychiatric examination, psychosocial review, and mental status examination. The applicant was self referred to the Mental Hygiene Consultation Service to discuss frustrations with Army duty and chronic marital problems. The applicant was first seen by Mental Hygiene in July 1974 for very similar problems. At that time, he stated that he wanted to get out of the military service. He was still requesting separation from the Army. The applicant had chronic maladjustment since entering the Army. This had manifested itself primarily in marginal job performance. In addition, his relationship with both peer and supervisors had been marginal to inadequate. In the face of frustration on the job and dealing with other personnel, he responded through the use of drugs. The psychiatrist indicated that he was unable to find any evidence for psychosis or neurosis or organic brain syndrome. However, he would describe the applicant as having a severe personality disorder with marked immaturity, as well as sociopathic traits. His chronic use of drugs in the face of frustration would undoubtedly continue. In his opinion, the applicant was not rehabilitatible in the Army drug rehabilitation program. The applicant had minimal to no motivation for changing his drug use behavior. He strongly recommended that the applicant be considered for chapter 13 separation from the service as deemed appropriate by his commander.

9. The applicant was hospitalized on 27 March 1975. The diagnoses were: reflex parasympathomimetic activity, secondary to drug usage; and improper use of amphetamines (possibly cut with unknown drugs), manifested by dry tongue, dilated pupils, hand tremor; precipitating stress, undetermined; predisposition, family disorganization; moderate impairment. Line of duty: Undetermined. He was released to duty on 29 March 1975, pending an administrative discharge.

---

The hospital documents indicate, in effect, that the applicant had a long history of drug abuse, "LSD," and recently speed; that he had a history of maladjustment; that he had been seen at the Mental Hygiene Clinic; that he had been evaluated by a psychiatrist who found the applicant as non-rehabilitatible; that the psychiatrist advised against a rehabilitation program at Fort Shafter, Hawaii; and that the psychiatrist recommended the applicant's separation under chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200.

10. A statement, dated 7 April 1975, by the Personnel Sergeant Major indicated that he had counseled the applicant on three different occasions from 6 February through 5 March 1975 regarding his personal problems, his duty performance, his conduct, his appearance, his duties at the Welfare and Recreation Branch; and what the applicant could do to improve his performance and how he could do it. Although the applicant indicated that he would "shape up," it did not improve. He believed that the applicant could not be rehabilitated because of his general dislike of the Army, his lackadaisical attitude, and his refusal to even attempt to bring himself up to the required standards. He recommended that the applicant be separated under chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 since he believed that the applicant could not adapt to military life or accept authority.

11. On 24 April 1975, the applicant was advised of the commander's proposed action to separate him for unsuitability, and of his rights. On 28 April 1975, after being advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him and his rights, the applicant waived consideration, personal appearance, and representation by counsel before a board of officers. He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

12. On 28 April 1975, the applicant was found physically qualified for separation. He had a physical profile of 111111.

13. On 5 May 1975, the commander submitted a request recommending that the applicant be discharged for unsuitability because of character and behavior

---

disorders. On 12 May 1975, the intermediate commander also recommended that the applicant be separated for unsuitability.

14. On 15 May 1975, the applicant's discharge was approved by the general court-martial convening authority, with a general discharge certificate. On 27 May 1975, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-4, under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-5b(2) for unsuitability-character and behavior disorders, with a general discharge under honorable conditions. He had completed a total of 3 years, 3 months, and 26 days active military service. He received the National Defense Service Medal, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, and the Marksman Qualification Badge (Rifle).

15. Department of the Army message, dated 30 March 1976, changed "character and behavior disorder" to "personality disorder."

16. 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.

---

17. Army Regulation 635-200, currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-13 provides, in pertinent part, that, 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.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. The applicant's discharge on 27 May 1975 for unsuitability was proper and in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200.

2. Since the preponderance of the evidence shows that the applicant was discharged for character and behavior disorders and his acts of misconduct were minor infractions of discipline which were purely military offenses, it appears that he should qualify for an honorable discharge in accordance with the secretarial policy announced in the Nelson Memorandum and under current standards.

3. In consideration of the foregoing findings and conclusions, to deny the applicant a fully honorable discharge is unjust and it would be equitable to now correct his records to show that he was honorably discharged on 27 May 1975.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

         a. by showing that the individual concerned was discharged on 27 May 1975, with an honorable discharge certificate; and

         b. by issuing to him an honorable discharge certificate, dated 27 May 1975, in lieu of the general discharge certificate of the same date held by him.

---

BOARD VOTE:

                     GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                     GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                     DENY APPLICATION




                                             
                  CHAIRPERSON