| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. Allen L. Raub | Member |
2. The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
3. The applicant has provided no evidence or argument in support of his application.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he initially enlisted on 6 July 1956 and served until he was honorably released from active duty on 3 July 1959, due to the expiration of his term of service. He again enlisted on 7 February 1962 for a period of 3 years in the pay grade of E-2. He was assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma and was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 20 February 1962. On 18 June 1962, he was transferred to Italy.
5. On 4 February 1963, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, for unsuitability due to a diagnosed character and behavior disorder. He cited as the basis for his recommendation that the applicant had been diagnosed by a psychiatrist as having a severe character disorder of emotional unstable personality. He also stated that the applicant quite often would become very nervous and start crying whenever he thought of his wife and children and that his emotional state was such that he could not accomplish even the simplest task.
6. The applicant acknowledged that he had been counseled by the psychiatrist, chaplain and commander and that he understood the basis for the recommendation for separation. He waived all of his rights and indicated that he understood the consequences of receiving a general discharge. He also declined the opportunity to consult with counsel.
7. The appropriate authority approved the recommendation on 15 February 1963 and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.
8. Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 28 March 1963, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, due to a character and behavior disorder. He had served 1 year, 1 month and 22 days of active service during his current enlistment.
9. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. Additionally, a review of the applicant’s records failed to reveal any record of disciplinary action being taken against the applicant during his service.
10. 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 28 March 1963 was accomplished in accordance with regulations then in effect.
2. However, 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 28 March 1963.
2. That the Department issued to him an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 28 March 1963, in lieu of the general discharge of the same date held by him.
BOARD VOTE:
___alr___ ___jhl ___ __le ____ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
____Joann H. Langston____
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002073309 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/02/20 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1963/03/28 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-209 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | UNSUIT/C&B DISORDER |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 557 | 144.4200/A42.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100018220
There is no evidence to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board, within its 15-year statute of limitations, for a discharge upgrade. The applicant's military records show that a Medical Corps officer examined the applicant and found evidence of a character and behavior disorder (now called personality disorder). As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. voiding the general discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000645
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge. The Brotzman Memorandum required that the revised provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 be applied retroactively when reviewing applications for discharge upgrades based on personality disorders. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140000645 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140000645 2 ARMY BOARD...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016138
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 14 August 1963 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability based on a character and behavior disorder (Separation Program Number 264). As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. issuing him an Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 14...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011266C070208
The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge. On 23 January 1963, the appropriate separation authority approved the discharge request and directed the issuance of a general discharge. That determination was well within the separation’s authority at that time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100267C070208
Department of the Army BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 1901 SOUTH BELL STREET 2ND FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22202-4508 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: JUNE 29, 2004 DOCKET NUMBER : AR2004100267 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 Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199707333C070209
The applicant requests the upgrade of his discharge from general to honorable by reason of medical disability. It required retroactive application of revised policies, attitudes and changes in reviewing applications for upgrade of discharges based on personality disorders. 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 on 23 December 1963.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199707333
The applicant requests the upgrade of his discharge from general to honorable by reason of medical disability.3. Accordingly, applicant’s administrative separation on 23 December 1963 with a general discharge was accomplished in accordance with regulations in effect at the time. 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 on 23 December 1963.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008741
After being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation, its effects, and the rights available to him, he waived his right to consideration of his case by a board of officers, to a personal appearance before a board of officers, and to counsel. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under honorable conditions, on 1 March 1963, under the procedures of Army Regulation 635-209, for character and behavior disorder. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073389C070403
The examining psychiatrist noted that the applicant was eligible for separation under Army Regulation 635-209, but was considered cleared psychiatrically for any administrative disposition deemed appropriate by his command. On 2 October 1962 the company commander initiated action to administratively discharge the applicant with a general discharge under Army Regulation 635-209. Thereafter, the type of discharge and the character of service were to be determined solely by the individual's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090649C070212
There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. However, his post-service conduct and the fact that he got an honorable discharge prior to his reenlistment is an insufficient basis to grant the relief requested as the period of service in question was not totally honorable. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or...