2.  The applicant requests that his general discharge for unsuitability be corrected to medical retirement.

3.  He states that his records will support his contention that he should have been medically retired.

4.  The applicant's military personnel and medical records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 October 1966, was promoted to pay grade E-3, and was awarded the military occupational specialty of light vehicle driver.

5.  On 5 February 1967 he was seen at an Air Force hospital emergency room complaining of headaches and blackout spells.  He stated that his headaches began while he was in high school and was the reason he quit school.  He also complained of low chest pain and abdominal discomfort, stating that those symptoms became quite severe just before he entered the service.  He reported being depressed, being tremulous, having feelings of anxiety, having nightmares which usually included his running from something, and having some suicidal ruminations over the 2 years preceding the examination.  He was then diagnosed as having chronic anxiety reactions of moderate severity.  His physician opined that the condition was not incurred in line of duty, that it had existed prior to service (EPTS).

6.  The applicant was psychiatrically treated for his symptoms at an Army medical treatment facility in May, July and November 1967, consistently being diagnosed as having moderate to severe character disorder.  In one examination he was diagnosed as having a passive-aggressive reaction with poor motivation and defective attitude.  All of the examining physicians recommended that he be administratively separated from the service due to those conditions.  On 14 November 1967, in the second psychiatric evaluation he had in November, a physician stated that the applicant had a basic character and behavior disorder which was not amenable to hospitalization, treatment, disciplinary action, or reclassification to other duties.  The physician also stated that the applicant had no disqualifying defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels and recommended that he be administratively separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.

7.  On 4 December 1967 he was notified by his commander that he was recommending him for discharge due to unsuitability and of his rights in conjunction with that recommendation. He chose to waive those rights.

8.  On 18 December 1967 the applicant’s commander forwarded a recommendation for his separation.

9.  The separation authority approved the recommendation and, accordingly, on 5 January 1968 the applicant was issued a General Discharge Certificate for unsuitability under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at that time.  He had 1 year, 2 months and 17 days of active service.

10.  Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 3-3, provides that according to accepted medical principles, certain abnormalities and residual conditions exist that, when discovered, lead to the conclusion that they must have existed or have started before the individual entered military service.  Examples of these conditions include hereditary conditions.

11.  Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph B-10, provides that hereditary, congenital and other EPTS conditions frequently become unfitting through natural progression and should not be assigned a disability rating unless service aggravated complications are clearly documented or unless a soldier has been permitted to continue on active duty after such a condition, known to be progressive, was diagnosed or should have been diagnosed.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 governs the overall policy for separation of enlisted personnel from active duty.  Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability.  It provided, in pertinent part, for the discharge due to unsuitability of those individuals with character and behavior disorders and disorders of intelligence as determined by medical authority.  When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual’s entire record.

13.  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 stated in his initial psychiatric consultation that the conditions which were causing him problems, conditions which were later attributed to his personality disorders, existed before he enlisted.  Therefore, those conditions are irrefutably EPTS.

2.  Since EPTS conditions which are not aggravated by military service are not to be rated by the Army, the applicant was not eligible for a medical retirement.

3.  In addition, the applicant’s conditions were classified as personality disorders and were not medically disqualifying, again precluding him from being medically retired.  As such, his administrative separation for unsuitability was appropriate.

4.  However, the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s case places him within the scope of the cited memorandums.  His records do not contain any "clear and demonstrable reasons" which would justify a less than fully honorable discharge.

5.  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 Certificate on 5 January 1968.

2.  That the Department of the Army issue to the individual concerned an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 5 January 1968, in lieu of the general discharge previously issued to 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