RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           7 April 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040003414


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Eric N. Anderson              |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Linda M. Barker               |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that her general, under honorable
conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD); that
her rank be changed from private/E-1 (PV1) to private/E-2 (PV2) and that
the Separation Program Number (SPN) 264 be deleted from her separation
document (DD Form 214).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that in less than nine months after
she entered the Army, she was discharged by reason of unsuitability due to
a character and behavior disorder.  She claims this condition was diagnosed
as a personality disorder by a psychiatrist at Fort Jackson, South
Carolina, after she had been treated several times for nervous breakdowns
and fainting spells.  The applicant further states that since her Enlisted
Qualification Record (DA Form 20) notes no disciplinary actions, and given
her conduct and efficiency ratings during recruit and medical training were
“Excellent”, she believes a GD was not warranted.

3.  The applicant further claims that her DD Form 214 also indicates she
was reduced in rank from PV2 to PV1 on 21 July 1970 and again no
disciplinary actions were noted on her DA Form 20.  She further states that
since there is so much confusion between SPN and reentry (RE) codes, she
requests the removal of the notation and regulatory authority from her DD
Form 214.  She states a photocopy with the old codes blacked out is not
acceptable.

4.  The applicant provides a copy of her DD Form 214 and a psychiatric
evaluation in support of her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 7 October 1970.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 18 June 2004.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant’s military records show she enlisted in the Army and
entered active duty on 14 January 1970.  She was trained in, awarded and
served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 91A (Medical Corpsman).

4.  The applicant’s DA Form 20 confirms, in Item 33 (Appointments and
Reductions), that she was advanced to PV2 on 14 May 1970 and that this is
the highest rank she attained while serving on active duty.

5.  The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  It does reveal a
disciplinary history that includes her acceptance of nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ) on two separate occasions.

6.  On 17 April 1970, the applicant accepted NJP for absenting herself from
her unit on 10 April 1970.  Her punishment for this offense included a
forfeiture of $17.00 and 14 days restriction.

7.  On 21 July 1970, the applicant accepted NJP for five specifications of
failing to go to her appointed place of duty at the time prescribed.  Her
punishment for these offenses was a reduction to PV1 and a forfeiture of
$20.00.

8.  The applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains a
copy of United States Army Training Center, Fort Jackson Unit Orders Number
45,
dated 31 July 1970.  These orders reduced the applicant to PV1, effective
31 July 1970.  The authority for the reduction was Article 15, UCMJ.

9.  On 10 July 1970, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation at
Mental Hygiene Consultation Service, Fort Jackson.  The examining
Psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant with a personality disorder and
cleared her for administrative action deemed appropriate by the command.

10.  On 14 August 1970, the unit commander recommended the applicant’s
separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of
unsuitability (character and behavior disorder).  The commander stated that
since the applicant’s arrival at Fort Jackson, she had continuing acts of
depression, suicidal thoughts and demonstrated the inability to cope with
military life.  The commander concluded that the applicant lacked the
motivation to be of value to the Army.
11.  On 25 August 1970, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
discharge for unsuitability and directed that the applicant receive a GD.
On
7 October 1970, the applicant was discharged accordingly.

12.  The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant confirms
that she was separated with a GD on 7 October 1970.  At the time of her
discharge, she held the rank of PV1 and had completed a total of 8 months
and 22 days of creditable active military service.  This document further
shows that the authority for her separation was paragraph 6b(2), Army
Regulation 635-212 and the reason for separation was unsuitability
(character and behavior disorder). Based on the authority and reason for
her discharge, the applicant was assigned a SPN of 264, which reflected a
character and behavior disorder separation.

13.  There is no indication that the applicant petitioned the Army
Discharge Review Board for an upgrade to her discharge within its 15-year
statute of limitations.

14.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, provided the authority
for the separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability based on
inaptitude, character and behavior disorder, apathy, enuresis and
alcoholism.  Members separated under these provisions could receive either
an HD or GD.

15.  On 23 November 1972, Army Regulation 635-200 was published and became
the governing regulation for the administrative separation of enlisted
personnel, which included the categories of separations previously governed
by Army Regulation 635-212.  A Department of the Army (DA) message #
302221Z, dated March 1976, changed “character and behavior disorder” to
“personality disorder” and Army Regulation 635-200 was revised on 1
December 1976.

16.  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.
17.  Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 1332.28, dated 11 August 1982,
subject: Discharge Review Board Procedures and Standards, established
uniform policies, procedures, and standards for the review of discharges or
dismissals under Title 10, United States Code, section 1553, and this
guidance applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense and all the
Military Departments.

18.  Army Regulation 635-200, currently in effect, sets forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-13
provides, in pertinent part, when separation is because of a personality
disorder, the service of a soldier separated per this paragraph will be
characterized as honorable unless an entry level separation is required
under chapter 3, section III.  A characterization of service of under
honorable conditions may only be awarded to a soldier separating under
these provisions if they had been convicted of an offense by general court-
martial or convicted by more than one special court-martial during the
current enlistment.

19.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Codes), in effect at the time of
the applicant’s discharge, provided the specific authorities (regulatory or
directive), reasons for separating soldiers from active duty, and the SPN
codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  The SPN code of 264 was the
appropriate code to assign Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-212, by reason of character and behavior disorder.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was separated under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unsuitability
(character and behavior disorder).  It further shows that her separation
processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation
and her discharge accurately reflected her overall record of service.

2.  However, under current regulations, members separated by reason of
personality disorder (character and behavior disorder) must be issued an HD
unless they have been convicted by a general court-martial or more than one
special court-martial.  Therefore, given the applicant’s disciplinary
record does not rise to the level that supports a GD, her discharge is too
harsh under current standards.  Therefore, it would be appropriate to
upgrade her discharge to an
HD in the interest of equity.
3.  The applicant’s claim that her separation document should be corrected
to reflect her rank as PV2 and by deleting the entry SPN 264 was also
carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support
granting this requested relief.  The applicant’s record confirms she was
reduced to PV1 for cause through the imposition of NJP under Article 15 of
the UCMJ.  Further, she was properly assigned SPN 264 based on the
authority and reason for her separation.  Thus, there is no error or
injustice related to these entries on her
DD Form 214.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

___ENA_  ___JEA__  ___LMB_  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely
file.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army
records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing that she
received an honorable discharge on 7 October 1970, in lieu of the general,
under honorable conditions discharge of the same date she now holds.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
correction of the rank and separation program number code listed on her DD
Form 214.




            ____James E. Anderholm___
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040003414                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/04/07                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1970/10/07                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-212                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |C&B Disorder                            |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT PARTIAL                           |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.  1021                |100.0000                                |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]