| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deyon D. Battle | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. Allen L. Raub | Member |
2. The applicant requests in effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
3. The applicant states that he would have completed his tour of duty in Vietnam if his supervisors had not convinced him that it was in the best interest for him to accept a general discharge.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he was inducted into the Army at Fort Bliss, Texas, on 5 June 1969 and he successfully completed his training as an infantryman. On 11 October 1969, he was transferred to Vietnam.
5. The applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation on 5 December 1969. The evaluation revealed that he was a fully oriented, alert, anxious, and guarded individual who had strong feelings of inadequacy and who was self depreciating. The psychiatrist stated that the applicant believed that others could not stand him and that he expressed considerable guilt for his past behavior. The psychiatrist further stated that he had dreams of death for many years and that he believed that his life had been a waste with little real hope for the future. He was diagnosed as having a passive aggressive passive dependent personality of a passive dependent type, which was chronic and severe. The psychiatrist determined that the diagnosis represented a character and behavior disorder and that it was unlikely that efforts to rehabilitate the applicant would be successful. The psychiatrist recommended that he be administratively separated from the military under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.
6. On 17 January 1970, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. The commander cited the applicant’s medical evaluation and duty limitation as the basis for his recommendation. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and after consulting with counsel, he waived his rights and he opted not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
7. On 11 February 1970, the recommendation for discharge was returned for additional and stronger comments from the division psychiatrist as to the reason why the applicant was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. The psychiatrist included an addendum to his initial evaluation stating that the applicant had been seen several times on an outpatient basis and required additional hospitalization on one occasion because of chronic depression. The psychiatrist stated that he continued to function on a marginal basis and experienced alternating periods of anxiety and depression. The psychiatrist further stated that although he was not actively suicidal at the present, he was definitely predisposed to withdrawal and self-destruction as his way of coping with stress and that he was quite likely make a serious attempt at suicide. The psychiatrist recommended that the applicant be administratively separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability as soon as possible.
8. The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 17 February 1970. Accordingly, on 3 March 1970, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability. He had completed 8 months and 29 days of total active service and he was issued a General Discharge Certificate.
9. 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.
10. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time of the applicant’s discharge, provided for discharge for unsuitability. Paragraph 3 of that regulation specified that action would be taken to separate a member for unsuitability when it established that a member met retention medical standards, and that a member would unlikely develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.
11. 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 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 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 record shows that the applicant’s administrative separation on 8 July 1971 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.
3. Consequently, it appears that the above-mentioned memorandum 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 3 March 1970.
2. That the Department issue to him an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 3 March 1970, 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 | AR2002075898 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/02/20 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1970/03/03 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-212 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | 547 |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 547 | 144.4000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013266
The applicant states his general discharge under honorable conditions should be upgraded to fully honorable based on a review of his records 3. c. The psychiatrist recommended the applicant be administratively separated from military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 [Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability]. The evidence of record shows he: * served just over six (6) months of a 12-month tour of duty in Vietnam * was not awarded any individual...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076789C070215
On 18 September 1968, the applicant’s commander submitted a request to have the applicant rehabilitatively transferred to another unit. The applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to discharge the applicant from the service for unsuitability due to a character and behavior disorder, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, on 30 April 1969. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067588C070402
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions (a general discharge) on 19 August 1969 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability due to character and behavior disorders. On 6 January 1971 and on 16 June 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s requests for a discharge upgrade to honorable. That the Department issue to her an Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 19 August 1969, in lieu of the general discharge of the same...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002693
The patient has been AWOL three times and has received seven Articles 15. On 17 July 1970, the applicant was separated with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability due to a character and behavior disorder. Therefore, in view of the foregoing the applicant's military service record should be corrected to show he was honorably discharged, effective 17 June 1970, under the extraordinary provisions of Department of the Army Memorandum, dated 8...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010277
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 February 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060010277 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 applicant requests that his discharge be changed from general (under honorable conditions) to an honorable discharge. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010718
On 7 December 1971, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's discharge for unsuitability under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for character and behavior disorder and directed issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. 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. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022705
The applicant states, in effect, he was discharged for unsuitability by reason of a character and behavior disorder and he would like his discharge reviewed and upgraded. However, it now appears his overall service record and his diagnosed personality disorder warrant upgrading of his discharge to fully honorable as directed by the above-referenced Army memoranda. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015227
On 19 November 1971, the defense counsel stated that the applicant was diagnosed in Vietnam with a character and behavior disorder and a civilian psychiatric report confirmed the diagnosis. The ADRB noted that on 22 October 1970 the applicant was diagnosed with a character and behavior disorder and based on the requirements of Army Regulation 635-212, as stated by his defense counsel; he should have received a General Discharge Certificate. In spite of this, the evidence of record shows...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019875
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his records to show he received a medical discharge for physical unfitness and an honorable discharge. While all requirements of law and regulations, then in effect, were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, the Brotzman Memorandum required that the revised provisions of Army Regulation 635-200...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078089C070215
On 7 August 1968, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, due to unsuitability. It required retroactive application of revised policies, attitudes and changes in reviewing applications for upgrade of discharges based on personality disorders. RECOMMENDATION : That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was honorably...