PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:.



         BOARD DATE: 6 May 1998
DOCKET NUMBER: AC97-05600


         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.	Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson
Ms.	Karen J. Newsome		Member
Mr.	Raymond V. O’Connor		Member

         Also present, without vote, were:

Mr.	Loren G. Harrell		Director
Mr.	Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst

         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 her general/under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

3. The applicant states, in effect, that she was young and very stupid at the time of her discharge; that she can’t remember what happened at the time; and that she is now going on 50 years of age and would like to join the VFW if possible.

4. The applicant’s military records show that on 12 May 1967 she entered the Regular Army as part of the Women’s Army Corps (WAC) for a period of 3 years at the age of 19. She attended her initial training at Fort McClellan, Alabama.

5. On 14 September 1967 the applicant while still in training was tried by summary court-martial for violation of Article 134 of the UCMJ for being drunk and disorderly in quarters on 3 September 1967. The resultant sentence for this offense was to forfeit $30.00.

6. On 25 October 1967 the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation which indicated that she joined the WAC on pure whimsy and because she thought it would be nice. The report indicated her adjustment to military life was poor as evidenced by her frequent disciplinary infractions. It goes on to indicate that the repeated attempts to rehabilitate the applicant had been ineffectual and that she felt she could not be a good soldier and desired to be separated from the service. The psychiatrist’s findings stated 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. He went on to say the applicant had no mental disease or defect sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels.

7. The psychiatric recommendation was that the applicant be separated from the service under the appropriate administrative regulation (AR 635-212 6b); that retention on active duty could be expected to result in continued ineffectiveness and disciplinary infractions and that separation should be accomplished as expeditiously as possible. The psychiatrist concluded by commenting that this women’s character and behavior disorder is of such severity that she cannot be expected to respond to counseling, transfer, or confinement.

8. On 31 October 1967 the applicant’s unit commander, based on the situation and recommendations outlined above, initiated separation action on the applicant, under the provisions of AR 635-212 for unsuitability and recommended she be issued a GD. The commander cited the applicant’s dependence on her mother and lack of maturity as part of her reason for the elimination action.

9. On 2 November 1967 the applicant acknowledged that she had been notified by her commanding officer that her discharge was being recommended and completed her election of rights. On this document the applicant waived her right to the following: military counsel; a hearing before a board of officers; and she elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

10. The appropriate authority, in an undated 2nd endorsement, approved the applicant’s discharge for unsuitability, under the provisions of AR 635-212
(SPN 264-Character and Behavior Disorder), and directed she be issued a GD. Accordingly, on 13 November 1967 the applicant was discharged after completing 6 months, and 2 days of active military service.

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

12. 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.

13. 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 her 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 13 November 1967.

2. That the Department of the Army issue to the individual concerned an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated
13 November 1967, in lieu of the discharge under honorable conditions of the same date now held by her.

BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION




                  ______________________
                  CHAIRPERSON