2.  The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his military records to show that he was discharged for medical reasons, and that his discharge date be changed.  Also, he requests that his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected to show his pay grade as E-5 instead of E-1, his last duty assignment as a unit in Vietnam, his specialty number and title to show 63B11 (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic) instead of 94B20 (Cook), and his education to show general equivalency diploma (GED) instead of 11 years general.

3.  He was born on 15 March 1946.  His Induction Record shows that he completed 11 years of formal education, and that he was inducted on 11 July 1967.  His Armed Forces Qualification Test score was 14 (Category IV).

4.  A Department of the Army Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) indicated that he completed basic combat training at Fort Bliss, Texas; that he was reassigned to Fort Huachuca for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 63B on 16 September 1967; that he was advanced to pay grade E-2 effective 11 November 1967; that he began training in MOS 94B20 on 30 November 1967; and that his duty MOS was 94B20.

5.  On 16 October 1967, a psychiatrist examined the applicant.  He indicated that the applicant’s diagnosis was: immature personality manifested by emotional instability, tension headaches, and gastric upsets; that there were no disqualifying mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels; that the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings; and that further rehabilitative efforts were not indicated.  He recommended that the applicant be separated from the military service under Army Regulation 635-212.


6.  On 3 November 1967, after being advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to accomplish his separation for unsuitability under Army Regulation 635-212, 
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.

7.  On 3 November 1967, the applicant’s commander submitted a request that the applicant be discharged from the service under Army Regulation 635-212, with a general discharge certificate.  He indicated that the discharge was recommended because of character and behavior disorders; that the applicant had an immature personality manifested by emotional instability; that, because of the emotional turmoil, the applicant frequently suffered from tension headaches and gastric upsets which had caused him to be absent from duty for more than 5 weeks; that no organic diseases were found upon medical evaluation; that the applicant had been counseled on five occasions; that the applicant’s conduct had been fair and his efficiency ratings had been unsatisfactory; and that, in his opinion, the applicant’s behavior was due to an incapacity to become a satisfactory soldier within the meaning of unsuitability.

8.  On 15 November 1967, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His imposed punishment was reduction to pay grade E-1 (suspended until 27 November 1967), restriction for 14 days, and extra duty for 14 days.  He did not appeal.  On 20 November 1967, the punishment of reduction to pay grade E-1 was vacated because he broke restriction on 19 November 1967.

9.  A Report of Medical Examination, dated 16 November 1967, found the applicant qualified for separation.  It indicated that his physical profile was 111111.


10.  Orders, dated 30 November 1967, reassigned the applicant from Company B, 3d Battalion, 1st Brigade, (Combat Support Training (CST)), U.S. Army Combat Surveillance School/Training Center, to Company C, 3d Battalion, 1st Brigade (CST), Fort Huachuca.  His MOS was shown as 00900 (Trainee).

11.  On 11 December 1967, the applicant’s discharge for unsuitability under Army Regulation 635-212 was approved, with a general discharge certificate.

12.  Orders, dated 14 December 1967, issued by the U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Huachuca, indicated that the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, on 15 December 1967 under Army Regulation 635-212; that his primary MOS was 94B20, and that he was assigned to Company C, 3d Battalion, 1st Brigade.

13.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicated that he was discharged on 15 December 1967, in pay grade E-1, under Army Regulation 635-212, separation program number (SPN) 260, with a general discharge certificate.  He had completed 5 months and 5 days active military service.  His last duty assignment was shown as Company C, 3d Battalion, 1st Brigade, his specialty number and title were shown as 94B20 Cook, and his education and training completed was shown as civilian education:  11 years general 1964.

14.  There is no evidence in the available records that the applicant served in Vietnam or that he received a GED.

15.  A Department of Veterans Affairs Rating Decision, dated 13 May 1995, indicated that the applicant was assigned nonservice connection for broken legs, right arm injury, back injury, and post traumatic stress disorder.

16.  Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, established the policy and provided the procedures and guidance for elimination enlisted personnel who were found to be unfit or 
unsuitable for further military service.  Paragraph 6b(2) provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of individuals for unsuitability by reason of character and behavior disorders.  Under that regulation, the appropriate authority could approve an honorable or a general discharge.

17.  A Department of the Army message, dated 30 March 1976, changed “character and behavior disorder” to “personality disorder.”

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

19.  Regulations in effect at the time of the applicant’s discharge provided that the reason for separation for SPN 260 was inaptitude and for SPN 264 was character or behavior disorders.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Based on the evidence of record, the applicant was recommended for discharge based on character and behavior disorder.  However, an error was made by Department personnel on his DD Form 214 by showing the SPN as 260 instead of SPN 264.

2.  The applicant’s record of service does not meet the criteria for a general discharge under current Army regulations.

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

4.  Based on the available records, it appears that the applicant’s date of discharge, pay grade, last duty assignment, specialty and title, and education are correct 
on his DD Form 214.  The applicant has not submitted any documentation to show the record is in error or unjust on these issues.

5.  Since there were no disqualifying mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels and the applicant was found physically qualified for separation, there is no basis to change his discharge to medical reasons.

6.  In view of the foregoing, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records, but only as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

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

	a.  by showing that the individual concerned was discharged under Army Regulation 635-212, SPN 264, on 15 December 1967, with an honorable discharge certificate; and 

	b.  by issuing him an honorable discharge certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 15 December 1967, in lieu of the general discharge certificate of the same date now held by him.


2.  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