PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:      I
	                                 
	                 

	BOARD DATE:         8 April 1998
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC97-07034


	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:




	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); and that the reason be changed to medical for mental health reasons as it should have been.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he has suffered from a mental condition since his time in the Army and should have been given help by the Army.  

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he reenlisted for the period of service under review on 8 January 1970 while assigned in Key West, Florida.  At the time of his reenlistment he had completed 8 months and 2 days of honorable service for which he was issued an HD certificate; he held military occupational specialty (MOS) 16E (Hawk Missile Fire Control Crewman); had attained the rank of private first class/E-3; and was assigned to Fort Monmouth to undergo training in MOS 34D (Automatic Data Processing Specialist).  

5.  Although specific medical records are not available the applicant’s unit commander, in his recommendation for the applicant’s discharge, cites the applicant’s character and behavior disorders as the reason for the action.  He indicated the applicant’s character and behavior disorders included:  irresistible impulse tendencies and pathological lying; mental and emotional defects which were manifested by his frequent incidents of insufficient fund checks, impersonation, and misrepresentation, in both military and civilian settings.  

6.  On 11 August 1971 a statement from a Psychology Specialist, and reviewed and approved by the Chief, Psychology Service, commented that the applicant had a history of exploits and grandiose schemes which make it appear he suffered from a sociopathic personality with psychopathic features.  They suggested the applicant’s behavior was marked by an inability to adapt socially and recommended he be separated, under the provisions of AR 635-212.  Their recommendation was based on a poor expectation that the applicant could satisfactorily adjust in the Army, and that any effort at rehabilitation would require a tremendous drain of resources, over a long period of time, with a low likelihood of success.

7.  The applicant’s unit commander further commented that during his tenure in the unit the applicant performed his duties commensurate with his training and special schooling. However, even though the applicant’s performance of duty was acceptable he was subject to an irresistible impulse, bordering on temporary insanity, and in such frequent states of mind he lied impulsively, misrepresented himself, and could not be trusted on or off duty, without careful supervision.  The unit commander determined the applicant, after psychiatric and psychological counseling, improved sufficiently to be processed for elimination, instead of a medical discharge.  However, the improvement was insufficient to rehabilitate him or restore him to duty.

8.  On 16 August 1971 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 he be issued a GD.  The commander specifically cited the applicant’s character and behavior disorders as the reasons for his action.

9.  Also on 16 August 1971, 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.

10.  On 23 August 1971 the intermediate level commander recommended approval of the separation action and requested that rehabilitative reassignment be waived.  In his explanation for the rehabilitative waiver he commented that the applicant’s severe character and behavior disorders bordered on outright mental irresponsibility and his long history of this action rendered rehabilitation useless.

11.  On 1 September 1971 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge for unsuitability, under the provisions of AR 635-212 (SPN 264-Character and Behavior Disorder), and directed he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.  Accordingly, on 8 September 1971 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 1 month, and 27 days of his current enlistment, and a total of 1 year, 11 months and 8 days of active military service.

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

13.  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.

14.  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 September 1971.

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 September 1971, in lieu of the discharge under honorable conditions of the same date now held by 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