PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:


         BOARD DATE: 24 JANUARY 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001061872


         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.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson
Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member
Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		Member

         The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

         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 that his discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

3. The applicant made no statement.

4. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 11 April 1979 (AC79-01808).

5. The applicant was seen in the psychiatric clinic at the Army hospital in Frankfurt on 5 June 1958. The 17 June 1958 psychiatric evaluation report showed that the applicant had a difficult time learning in school, quitting at age seventeen while in the seventh grade. He felt that he never learned to read or write and his only job before coming into the service was as a gas station attendant for an uncle, but he was never allowed to make change because he could not learn the procedure. He had several minor brushes with the law and one time was seen in juvenile court for car theft. He was very sensitive about his learning difficulties and felt that other people made fun of him. His condition was diagnosed as schizoid personality, chronic, moderate, manifested by unsociability, seclusiveness, inability to relate well with other people and marked instability in handling aggressive and hostile impulses. He was not psychotic or severely psycho-neurotic and had no mental disease. He was mentally responsible and able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right. He had the mental capacity to understand the nature of any proceedings against him. The applicant had a basic character-behavior disorder of life-long duration. He was totally unsuitable for further military duty. The examining psychiatrist recommended that the applicant be separated because of unsuitability.

6. On 19 June 1958 a board of officers convened at Hoechst, Germany, to determine whether the applicant should be discharged from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability. Testimony during the proceedings by the applicant’s commanding officer and three NCOs showed that the applicant became emotionally unstable during times of stress and tension, that he resisted all efforts of NCOs to get him to work, argued with them constantly, and seemed to feel that he was being picked on. At other times he appeared to be depressed. He appeared to have a deep-seated resentment of authority, and resisted any efforts to help him. Those officials stated that he lost control and had violent outbursts. One NCO indicated that he could not read nor could he write with any proficiency. He was a good worker, but took offense when given an order. Another NCO stated that he had rapidly changing moods, and when he talked to him about some difficulties he was having, he either stated that he did not remember or that he did not care, or that he was sorry. The applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, on three occasions while assigned to his unit.

7. The board determined that the applicant was unsuitable for further military service because of character and behavior disorders and recommended discharge from the service because of unsuitability. The separation authority approved the recommendation on 26 June 1958. The applicant was discharged on 15 July 1958. He had 2 years, 11 months, and 1 day of service.

8. Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and prescribed procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsuitability. Action was to be taken to discharge an individual for unsuitability when, in the commander's opinion, it was clearly established that: the individual was unlikely to develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier or the individual's psychiatric or physical condition was such as to not warrant discharge for disability. Unsuitability included inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, disorders of intelligence and transient personality disorders due to acute or special stress, apathy, defective attitude, and inability to expend effort constructively. Evaluation by a medical officer was required and, when psychiatric indications were involved, the medical officer must be a psychiatrist, if one was available. A general or honorable discharge was considered appropriate.

9. 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 were 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 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 was "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.

10. Army Regulation 635-200, currently in effect, prescribes policies and procedures for the separation of enlisted soldiers. Paragraph 5-13 states that a soldier may be separated for a personality disorder that interferes with assignment or with performance of duty, when the condition is a deeply-ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration that interferes with the soldier’s ability to perform duty. The diagnosis must have been established by a psychiatrist or doctoral-level clinical psychologist with necessary and appropriate professional credentials who is privileged to conduct mental health evaluations for the Department of Defense components. The service of a soldier separated for a personality disorder will be characterized as honorable.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. The applicant had a personality disorder as evidenced by the 17 June 1958 psychiatric evaluation report. His separation under honorable conditions in 1958 was proper.

2. Nonetheless, the Army memorandums referred to above represent an enhancement of the applicant’s rights and should be applied to his situation. Under current standards, in a case of this nature, it would be appropriate to upgrade the applicant’s discharge to an honorable discharge because of a personality disorder.

3. The applicant’s DD Form 214 should be changed to reflect his character of service as honorable.

4. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was discharged on 15 July 1958 with a character of service as honorable.

BOARD VOTE:

__GDP__ __WTM__ __RTD__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION




                  ____George D. Paxson____
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001061872
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20020124
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	110.00
2.	360
3.
4.
5.
6.