| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher | Member |
2. The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
3. The applicant states that he was discharged due to psychiatric reasons but has since been diagnosed with a bi-polar disorder for manic depression. He goes on to state that he has included two letters from his psychiatrist that have been submitted to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for disability (documents did not arrive with application). He continues by stating that his psychiatrist contends that due to his family history and symptoms that began in his teen years, his separation was the result of a mental illness. He further states that not only did the Army Mental Health officials fail to diagnose his illness at the time, they supported his discharge under honorable conditions because of his drug related conduct. Given his history of mental illness he now insists that his discharge be upgraded to honorable.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in Minneapolis, Minnesota on 9 July 1968 for a period of 3 years and training as an armor crewman. He completed his basic training at Fort Campbell, Kentucky and was transferred to Fort Knox, Kentucky to undergo his advanced individual training (AIT) as an armor crewman.
5. While at Fort Knox he went absent without leave (AWOL) from 3 February to 8 February 1969. Nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him on 13 February 1969 and his punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of pay. He was transferred to Korea on 24 March 1969.
6. The complete facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s administrative discharge are not present in the available records. However, the available records show that on 4 April 1970 the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness. He cited as the basis for his recommendation that the applicant suffered a seizure while sitting in a classroom and after referral to Mental Hygiene, it was determined that he was suffering the effects of flashbacks from lysergic acid (LSD).
7. In a fact sheet prepared by the Division Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) for the commanding general (approval authority), the SJA indicated that the applicant had admitted to a continuing history of drug use, particularly LSD, that he expressed no intent to stop using drugs but that he was afraid he might hurt someone while on a “bad trip”. He went on to state that while his attitude is described as resentful, he had no record of anything more than minor disciplinary infractions. The Division psychiatrist recommended immediate separation due to his severe personality disorder and advised the applicant to seek psychiatric help when he returned to the United States.
8. The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation on 8 May 1970 and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.
9. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions on 21 May 1970, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability based on a character and behavior disorder. He had served 1 year, 10 months and 8 days of total active service and had 5 days of lost time due to AWOL.
10. There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
11. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. It provided, in pertinent part, that individuals involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unsuitability. Although a general discharge was authorized, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.
12. 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 a 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 upgrades 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 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 evidence of records shows that the applicant’s administrative separation on 21 May 1970 was accomplished in accordance with regulations then in effect.
2. While the applicant’s behavior (drug use) is not condoned by the Board, the general discharge appears to be unduly harsh considering that the applicant had a long- standing basic character and behavior disorder which in all likelihood existed prior to entering the Army and may tend to exist permanently.
3. Consequently, it appears that the above mentioned memorandums should be applied to this case and that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.
4. 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 21 May 1970.
2. That the Department issue to him an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 21 May 1970, in lieu of the general discharge of the same date held by him.
BOARD VOTE:
___fe ___ ___be___ __kf ____ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
_____Fred N. Eichorn____
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001059110 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/11/08 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1970/05/21 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-212 .c&b DISORDER |
| DISCHARGE REASON | C&B DISORDER |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 557 | 144.4200/A42.00 PERS DISORDER |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063627C070421
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. However, at the time of the applicant’s separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was discharged from the service with an Honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007849
The applicant request, in effect, reconsideration of his previous request that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. His records show that while he was in Vietnam he had NJP imposed against him for being derelict in the performance of his duties and once he returned from Vietnam, he went AWOL after he submitted a request for a reduced term of enlistment and prior to having his request approved. The applicant and his counsel should note that if he were being...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016388
In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged UOTHC and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017412
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 June 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060017412 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. 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. As a result, the Board recommends that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087384C070212
On 5 March 1969, based on the recommendations made in the psychiatric report, the unit commander submitted his recommendation that the applicant be considered for discharge from the Army for unsuitability under the provision of AR 625-212. The applicant was discharged under honorable conditions on 1 April 1969, in the rank of Specialist Four, pay grade E-4, under the provisions of AR 635-212 for unsuitability based on a character and behavior disorder. There is no indication in the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015561
The applicant requests upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. He recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations-Discharge-Unfitness and Unsuitability) for unsuitability, character and behavioral disorder. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004344
When separation for unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individuals entire record. The evidence of record shows the applicants separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability was administratively correct, all requirements of law and regulations were met, the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, and the applicant was properly...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005665
On 20 May 1970, the applicant's immediate commander recommended the applicant's separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unsuitability. The applicant was accordingly discharged on 25 May 1970. The evidence of record shows the applicant's quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019710
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests correction of his military records by showing that his general under honorable conditions characterization of service was upgraded to honorable. There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000552
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. The available evidence supports his request for an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. In view of the change, the general discharge issued to the applicant at the time of separation is inconsistent with the standards for discharge for unsuitability, character and behavior disorder (now...