RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            OCTOBER 5, 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2004102914


      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:

|     |Ms. Kathleen A. Newman            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Meixell                  |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Larry C. Bergquist            |     |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 his general (under honorable
conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that at the time of his discharge, he
suffered from a mental disability that neither he nor the Army was aware
of.  He adds that at the time of his discharge, his mental condition was
never taken into consideration prior to his dismissal from service.

3.  The applicant submitted no documents to support his request although,
in his application to the Board, he stated that he was submitting medical
evidence showing the treatment that he had received throughout the years
for his medical condition.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice that
occurred on 4 December 1969.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 21 January 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 limitation 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 enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 26 February
1968 for training in the career group 63 (Automotive Maintenance).  He
successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual
training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.  On completion of his training, he
was awarded the MOS 63B (Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic).

4.  The applicant was sent to Germany and arrived there on 18 July 1968.
He served in the U.S. Army Europe with the 525th Ordnance Company and, on
17 October 1968, he volunteered for service in Vietnam.

5.  The applicant was promoted to Private First Class on 2 October 1968
while he was in the 525th Ordnance Company.  The applicant’s records show
that this would be the highest rank and pay grade that he would attain.
6.  The applicant was reassigned to Vietnam and arrived there on 8 March
1969.  He was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 1st
Battalion, 14th Artillery, 23rd Infantry Division (the Americal Division).
On 19 September 1969, the applicant was reassigned to Headquarters and
Headquarters Battery, Division Artillery, 23rd Infantry Division.

7.  On 15 March 1969, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ), for disobeying a lawfully given order, on 14 March 1969.  The
punishment imposed consisted of a forfeiture of $28 for a period of one
month.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

8.  On 20 June 1969, the applicant accepted NJP under the provisions of
Article 15, UCMJ, for disobeying a lawfully given order, on 16 June 1969.
The punishment imposed consisted of a forfeiture of $20 (suspended for one
month), and extra duty for 7 days.  The applicant did not appeal the
punishment.

9.  On 17 July 1969, the forfeiture of $20 that had been imposed on the
applicant in the NJP on 20 June 1969 was vacated.

10.  On 30 July 1969, the applicant accepted NJP under the provisions of
Article 15, UCMJ, for wrongfully and unlawfully leaving the scene of an
accident on 17 July 1969.  The punishment imposed consisted of a reduction
to Private,
E-2 (suspended for 30 days) and extra duty for 14 days.  The applicant did
not appeal the punishment.

11.  All documents related to the separation of the applicant from the Army
are not available; however, those that are available show that on 15
November 1969, the applicant's unit commander recommended that he appear
before a board of officers convened under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-212 to determine if he should be discharged before the expiration of
his term of service (ETS).  In his recommendation, the commander stated:

      a.  that the applicant had failed to adapt to the military by his
complete disregard for discipline and his inability to control his actions;
and


      b.  that in all instances he had displayed an attitude of doing
nothing that he did not feel like doing.  He maintains the position that
the Army has nothing to offer him and he has nothing to offer the Army.


12.  On 19 November 1969, the applicant was evaluated at the Mental Hygiene
Consultation Service for the purpose of determining if he should be
referred to a board of officers to determine if he should be separated
before his ETS.

13.  The mental status examination revealed an oriented individual with
normal motor behavior.  His speech was coherent, his mood was neutral, and
his affect was appropriate.  There was no overt thought disorder.  Memory
was intact, his judgment was poor, and his insight was minimal.
Intelligence was considered to be within normal limits.  There was no
evidence of drug or alcohol abuse and there was no evidence of psychosis or
neurosis.

14.  In the report prepared by the division psychiatrist, the applicant was
found mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to
adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and
participate in board proceedings.  The applicant was found to meet
psychiatric retention standards and the division psychiatrist opined that
there were no mental defects present sufficient to warrant disposition
through mental channels.

15.  The division psychiatrist also found that the applicant had a
borderline character disorder.  He recommended that the applicant be
separated as unsuitable and that because the problems that the applicant
had were deep rooted, it would take long-term therapy to resolve.

16.  On 25 November 1969, 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.

17.  The appropriate authority, the Division Artillery Commander, a
Colonel, approved the recommendation for the applicant's separation and
waived further counseling and rehabilitation.  The discharge authority also
directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

18.  The applicant was discharged under honorable conditions on 4 December
1969, in the rank of Private First Class, pay grade E-3, under the
provisions of AR 635-212.  The applicant was given a separation program
number (SPN) 264 (unsuitability - character and behavior disorder).  On the
date of his discharge, he had completed 1 year, 9 months, and 9 days active
military service with no lost time.

19.  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.

20.  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.

21.  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.

DISCUSSION AND 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 a borderline character disorder.  The examining psychiatrist opined
that the applicant met psychiatric retention standards and that there were
no mental defects present sufficient to warrant disposition through mental
channels.  He added that because the problems that the applicant had were
deep rooted, it would take long-term therapy to resolve and he therefore
recommended the applicant's separation before his ETS.
3.  The applicant's misconduct is not condoned; however, the issuance of a
general discharge appears to have been unduly harsh considering that the
applicant was diagnosed with a borderline character disorder.
Consequently, it appears that the Brotzman and Nelson 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.

BOARD VOTE:

lb______  kan _____  jm______  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
a recommendation for 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

      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.





            ___Kathleen A. Newman___
                    CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004102914                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041005                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19691204                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-212                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unsuitability – Character or Behavior   |
|                        |Disorder                                |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  360  |144.0000                                |
|2.  396                 |144.0135                                |
|3.  414                 |144.0153                                |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |



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