PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:

         BOARD DATE: 3 June 1998
         DOCKET NUMBER: AC97-11687

         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.	Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson
Mr.	George D. Paxson		Member
Ms.	Celia L. Adolphi		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 his general/under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

3. The applicant states, in effect, that he was given a GD due to mental disabilities at the time and now requests due process.

4. On 16 January 1973 the applicant entered the Regular Army for a period of
3 years at age 21. He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. Upon completion of AIT he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 64C (Motor Transport Operator) and was sent to Fort Gordon, Georgia for his first permanent duty station.

5. The applicant’s record documents that the highest rank he held on active duty was private/E-2 which he attained on 16 May 1973. The record contains no specific acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition and his disciplinary record contains only minor violations.

6. On 11 September 1973 the applicant received a psychiatric examination which resulted in the following findings: that the applicant was emotionally unstable, manifested by his inability to adjust to the military environment; immaturity; emotional instability; confusion of identity; nervousness and other symptoms of chronic anxiety; labile control of emotional responses to minor environmental stresses resulting in outbursts of weeping; repeated infractions of military rules and regulations with apparent failure to profit from military discipline; defiance to the military; poor impulse control with escape-type behavior; withdrawal from interpersonal relationships; impaired insight and judgment; and passive obstructionism. His rehabilitative potential was characterized as poor and it was determined he had no motivation for future service. The evaluation went on to say that the applicant had a sever predisposition of lifelong history of adaptation problems; ineffective parental guidance with cultural deprivation; family history of nervousness, emotional instability, absence of adequate father son relationship; poor social adaptation with difficulty forming meaningful friendships; irresponsible heterosexual relationships with one aborted child; school dropout; and marginal industrial adaptation. The psychiatrist concluded his findings with the comment that the applicant enlisted with unrealistic expectations to escape an unpleasant home environment. His recommendation was that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200 for unsuitability based on his character and behavior disorder.



7. On 12 September 1973 the applicant’s unit commander, based on the aforementioned psychiatric evaluation, notified the applicant that he intended to initiate separation action on him, under the provisions of chapter 13, AR 635-200, for unsuitability based on his character and behavior disorder. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and completed his election of rights.

8. On 26 September 1973 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge for unsuitability, under the provisions of paragraph 13-5b(2) (Character and Behavior Disorder), AR 635-209, and directed he be issued a General Discharge Certificate. Accordingly, on 15 October 1973 the applicant was discharged after completing 8 months and 17 days of active military service.

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

10. 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.

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 15 October 1973.

2. That the Department of the Army issue to the individual concerned an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated
15 October 1973, in lieu of the discharge under honorable conditions of the same date now held by him.










BOARD VOTE:


________ ________ ________ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION




                  ______________________
                  CHAIRPERSON