PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: 16 September 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003087384


         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. Luis Almodova		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Fred M. Eichorn		Chairperson
Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member
Ms. Karen A. Heinz		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, in effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

3. The applicant states, in effect, that "I have assumed for all these years that because my DD Form 214 says 'under honorable conditions' that I was honorably discharged. I must say that I was surprised when I approached the New Hampshire Registry of Motor Vehicles to obtain a veteran's plate and was told that I do not qualify because of the language on my discharge." He adds that, "At a time when it was extremely unpopular to have been a Vietnam Veteran, in this country, I was proud to have served my country and never disavowed that service."

4. The applicant reports that two of his brothers, his father, his maternal grandmother and his great grandfather are all proud veterans and he continues to be a member of the V.F.W. (Veterans of Foreign Wars) and the American Legion. His family, he states, has a long history of military service, which he hopes will be continued by his three sons.

5. The applicants repeats his plea that his discharge be upgraded so that he will be allowed to receive his veteran's plates and continue to display his patriotism visually and with pride.

6. In support of his application, the applicant submitted a self-authored appeal to the Board and a copy of his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States, Report of Transfer or Discharge.

7. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 28 November 1966 for training in the military occupational specialty 31J (Teletype Equipment Repairman). He successfully completed basic combat training at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and advanced individual training at Fort Knox, Kentucky. On completion of his training, he was awarded the MOS 11E (Armor Crewman). The applicant was then sent to Fort Gordon, Georgia, for training in the MOS 31J, the MOS for which he had initially enlisted.

8. The applicant was promoted to Private First Class on 4 August 1967 while he was at Fort Gordon.

9. After completing all training, the applicant departed Fort Gordon enroute to Vietnam. The applicant arrived in Vietnam on 5 November 1967 and was assigned to the 147th Maintenance Company in the MOS, 31J.

10. On 23 January 1968, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failing to go to his appointed place of duty, guard formation, on 21 January 1968. The punishment imposed consisted of a reduction to Private, E-2, restriction to the company area, during other than duty hours, for 14 days, and extra duty for 14 days. The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

11. The applicant’s records show that the highest rank and pay grade that he attained was Specialist Four, E-4. He was promoted to this rank on 20 August 1968. The record contains no documentary evidence of acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

12. On 20 July 1968 the applicant requested that his foreign service tour in Vietnam be extended for 6 months. The applicant's request was approved on 26 July 1968.

13. On 8 November 1968, the applicant was medically evacuated from Vietnam and assigned to the Medical Holding Detachment, Camp Zama, Japan. On 21 November 1968, the applicant was further medically evacuated to the United States Naval Hospital, Newport, Rhode Island. The applicant was assigned to the Medical Hold Company, US Army Hospital, Fort Devens, Massachusetts, and was attached to the naval hospital for treatment.

14. On 18 February 1969, the applicant was seen at the Mental Health Consultation Division, at Fort Devens, and again on 20 February 1969. He underwent a psychiatric evaluation on 28 February 1969. Records reviewed indicated that the applicant had a history of drug abuse and neuropsychiatric consultations. The applicant was diagnosed as having an emotionally unstable personality, severe.

15. The applicant was found mentally competent to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right and able to understand and participate in administrative proceedings. The applicant was also deemed to meet retention standards of Army Regulation (AR) 40-501.

16. In the applicant's patient evaluation report, the psychiatrist commented, "The diagnosis is indicative of a character and behavior disorder. The applicant represents a very primitive level of personality development with a strong, poorly controlled aggressive impulse toward authoritative figures, resulting in severely limited ability to adapt and behave rationally in unfamiliar and stressful situations. In spite of his good physical health and intelligence, it is expected that these personality limitations will render him of no value to the Army. It is anticipated that any efforts such as reassignment, retraining, counseling, etc., will only result in added expense to the Government in both finances and manpower."

17. The psychiatrist recommended that the applicant be handled administratively however deemed best by command authorities in light of the findings.

18. The complete facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s administrative discharge are not present in the available records. However,
on 4 March 1969, he completed a 1AA (First Army Area) Form 653-1 (Individual's Statement). This statement was completed in conjunction with separation actions under the provisions of AR 635-212.

19. On this form, the applicant consulted with counsel and completed his election of rights. He waived consideration of his case by and appearance before a board of officers. The applicant opted not to submit a statement in his defense and waived representation by counsel.

20. 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 unit commander recommended that the applicant receive a general discharge. On 19 March 1969, the intermediate commander recommended approval of the separation action.

21. The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation on 27 March 1969, and directed that the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate. The discharge authority also directed that AR 635-212, SPN (Separation Program Number) Code 264, be entered as the authority for discharge on the DD Form 214. SPN Code 264 was used when a soldier was discharged due to Unsuitability-character and behavior disorder.

22. 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. On the date of his discharge, he had completed 2 years and 4 months active military service. Block 27a (Non Pay Periods, Time Lost) shows that the applicant had 4 days lost time.

23. 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.

24. AR 635-212, then in effect, sets forth the policy and procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability. 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.

25. AR 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 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 discharge proceedings appear to have been conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time of his separation. The Board is satisfied that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

2. The applicant was diagnosed by a trained psychiatrist and was found to have an emotionally unstable personality, severe. The records reviewed indicated a history of drug abuse and neuropsychiatric consultations. The examining psychiatrist opined that the applicant met the retention standards of AR 40-501; but added, the applicant represented a very primitive level of personality development with a strong, poorly controlled aggressive impulse toward authoritative figures, resulting in severely limited ability to adapt and behave rationally in unfamiliar and stressful situations. In spite of his good physical health and intelligence, it was expected that these personality limitations would render him of no value to the Army. It was anticipated that any efforts such as reassignment, retraining, counseling, etc., would only result in added expense to the Government in both finances and manpower.

3. While the Board does not condone his misconduct, the issuance of a general discharge appears to have been unduly harsh considering that the applicant was diagnosed with a character and behavior disorder, which in all likelihood existed prior to his entering the Army.

4. Consequently, it appears that the Brotzman and Nelson memorandums should be applied to this case and that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.

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

That all Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by:

         a. showing that the individual concerned was separated from the service with an Honorable Discharge Certificate on 1 April 1969, and

b. issuing the applicant an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Regular Army dated 1 April 1969, in lieu of the general, under honorable, discharge of the same date now held by him.

BOARD VOTE:

___fe ___ ____kh __ __mm___ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION




                  _____Fred N. Eichorn_____
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003087384
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	2003/09/16
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1969/04/01
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsuitability – character and behavior disorder.
BOARD DECISION	GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 360	144.0000
2. 396	144.0135
3.
4.
5.
6.