RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        DECEMBER 16, 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004103916


      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             |
|     |Ms. Deyon D. Battle               |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Yolanda Maldonado             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Maribeth B. Love              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Ronald J. Weaver              |     |Member               |

      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 that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an
honorable or a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states that several months after being released from a
mental hospital, he was drafted and that due to his condition, he could not
adjust to military life.

3.  The applicant provides in support of his application, copies of a
summary, comments, mental examination and physical examination conducted on
28 May 1963 by physicians at the Southwest Missouri Psychiatric
Rehabilitation Center; a copy of a psychological examination conducted by a
clinical psychologist on 8 July 1963; and copies of doctor’s notes and
orders from the Southwest Missouri Psychiatric Rehabilitation Center,
regarding the applicant’s treatments for the period covering 28 May 1962
through 13 June 1965.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AC86-
04115, on 1 July 1987.

2.  On 28 May 1963, when he was 15 years old, the applicant was admitted to
the Nevada State Hospital for the first time from a juvenile detention
farm.  He was at the juvenile detention farm for setting fire to buildings,
stealing and he had been combative and aggressive with schoolmates.  The
hospital summary shows that the applicant’s mother brought him to a child
guidance clinic in 1956, when he was 8 years old because he was cruel and
combative.  He was in the sixth grade when he was expelled from school
after a fight with a boy whom he knocked out thoroughly.  The hospital
summary further indicates that he participated in some burglaries several
years prior to being admitted into the hospital which resulted in his being
placed in a residential school and that after he left that school he was
placed with an aunt.  The summary indicates that he could not get along
with his uncle because he claims that his uncle got drunk and called him
crazy.

3.  While hospitalized, the applicant underwent a mental status
examination; a physical examination; and laboratory work.  He was diagnosed
as having an adjustment reaction of adolescence and his treatment consisted
of educational therapy, music, drug therapy and he participated in other
supervised activities.
4.  A psychological examination was conducted on the applicant on 8 July
1963.  The clinical psychologist’s observation was that he had an easygoing
pleasant look about him and that he was polite during the interview with an
easygoing flow of speech which made him (the psychologist) take a liking.
The psychologist stated that when one looked beyond the seeming
spontaneity, however, one found a general evasiveness and some confusion
and that he was very willing to deal with easy superficialities, even when
being pushed about his past behavior. The psychologist further stated that
he seemed able to create and interpret the occurrences of the past so they
seemed justifiable or excusable and that, as for confusion, there were an
extraordinary number of slips of the tongue and miscarried phrases during
the interview.  The psychologist noted that there seemed frequently to be a
more than one response coming to mind at a time and his inability to deal
with them individually or put them in a sequence.

5.  Results of tests conducted on 8 July 1963, indicated that the applicant
seemed to be a curious mixture of character disorder and morbid psychosis
and that his basic mold seems to dictate that he live by his wits, fooling
himself and others about his feelings and intentions.  Test results show
that his training in duplicity and conscience free living was of a
character disorder nature and seemed to form the basis for his interactions
with others; yet when placed in a loosely structured situation where the
right superficial response was not dictated to him by his environment, he
showed an internally dominated morbidity of a schizophrenic nature.  The
clinical psychologist concluded that at that time, it seemed that his
superficial, meet-the-demands-of-the-id manner of behaving set the stage
for him to slip rather easily and glibly into psychosis.  The psychologist
further concluded that it seemed that he had a way to go before showing a
full blown schizophrenic psychosis, but it was likely that he was on his
way.  The psychologist recommended that he be left under observation for a
while, as it was more likely that he would get worse than better.

6.  Hospital staff meeting notes dated 16 July 1963, show that one
physician’s impression of the applicant was that he lacked ability for
abstractions and that it was easy to see how that lack led him to rather
primitive, impulsive reactions such as stealing or fighting.  The physician
stated that the applicant just could not think of anything else and that
his plans for the future were also rather unrealistic. The physician
indicated that he may make out fairly well in a structured environment, but
left on his own in a complex, competitive society, he was well apt to go
from one trouble to another.  During this evaluation a diagnosis of
borderline intellectual capacity with behavioral reaction was offered.  On
20 December 1968, he was discharged from family care rehabilitation as
improved.

7.  On 6 February 1969, prior to his entry on active duty, the applicant
underwent a physical examination.  On the Report of Medical History that he
completed at the time of his entry examination, he revealed that he had
been a patient in a mental hospital and he indicated that he had been very
disturbed and all upset.  The officer that conducted the entry examination
indicated that the applicant was in the Nevada State Hospital for 1 year
and 3 months and that he was there because his father left home and he
became despondent.  He also indicated that the applicant had been okay
since his discharge from the hospital and that he had not produced a letter
on neuropsychiatric illness.  Also documented on his Report of Medical
History is a note that indicates, “registrant is determined acceptable;
however, he claims ailments not verified by the medical officer and he has
been advised to present documentary evidence to substantiate his claims to
his selective service board prior to his induction”.  The reviewing officer
found him fit for service and qualified for induction in the Army.

8.  He was inducted into the Army on 11 April 1969.

9.  On 16 September 1969, the applicant was convicted by a special court-
martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 11 May 1969 until 15
August 1969.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor and a
forfeiture of pay.

10.  The applicant was convicted by a special court-martial on 4 December
1969, of being AWOL from 14 October 1969 until 6 November 1969.  He was
sentenced to confinement at hard labor and a forfeiture of pay.

11.  He went AWOL again on 5 March 1970 and he remained absent until he
returned to military control on 14 April 1970.

12.  On 5 May 1970, the applicant was notified that charges were pending
against him for being AWOL.  After consulting with counsel, he submitted a
request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.


13.  The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 8 June
1970.  Accordingly, on 25 June 1970, the applicant was discharged under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the
service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 4 months and
15 days of total active service and he had approximately 305 days to lost
time due to AWOL and confinement.  He was furnished an Undesirable
Discharge Certificate.



14.  The available records indicate that no mental status evaluation was
completed on the applicant prior to his discharge.

15.  On 7 August 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the
applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

16.  On 1 July 1987, this Board denied the applicant’s request for an
upgrade of his discharge.

17.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides,
in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses
for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at
any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for
discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
Currently, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally
considered appropriate.  However, at the time of the applicant's separation
the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

18.  That same regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a statement of
any reasonable ground for belief that the individual is, or was at the time
of his misconduct, mentally defective, deranged, or abnormal will accompany
the request for discharge and when appropriate, an evaluation by a
psychiatrist will be included.

19.  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.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and
regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is
commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2.  However, after a thorough review of all of the available documentation,
this Board is convinced that the applicant suffered from a mental condition
prior to his induction into the Army.  Pertinent medical documentation
shows that in July 1963, the applicant’s tests results shows that he was a
mixture of character disorder and morbid psychosis and that his basic mold
seemed to dictate that he lived by his wits, fooling himself and others
about his feelings and intentions.  The clinical psychologist determined
that a character disorder seemed to form the basis for his interactions
with others.  At the time of this diagnosis, the psychologist determined
that he should be left in observation for a while as it was more likely
that he would get worse than better.

3.  Although he was released from the Nevada State Hospital in December
1968 based on his condition being improved, according to his prerelease
psychological examination, he was diagnosed as having an adjustment
reaction of adolescence.  His insight was completely lacking; he displayed
very poor judgment; and he was given drug therapy while he was
hospitalized.

4.  The Board has noted that at the time that he completed his induction
physical examination, he failed to submit the proper documentation for the
Army to make a sound determination regarding his mental status.  However,
the applicant did reveal that he had been a patient in a mental hospital
for over 1 year.  He had just been released from the hospital less than 3
months prior to his induction.

5.  After his induction, the applicant immediately began going AWOL for no
apparent reason and he continued to go AWOL even after being convicted by
two special courts-martial.  His overall behavior reflects his mental
status at the time of his induction and it is indicative of his poor
judgment and his inability to adjust to military life.

6.  The fact that the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the
good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial has also been noted.
 However, there was no mental status evaluation conducted prior to his
discharge and; considering all of the facts and circumstances surrounding
this case, it is reasonable to presume that had he submitted the necessary
medical documentation at the time of his induction physical examination, he
may not have been found medically qualified for induction at that time.
7.  Therefore, based on the medical documentation submitted on behalf of
his application, for the applicant’s to continue to live with the stigma of
an undesirable discharge would be an injustice.  Although he was not
discharged from the Army based on unsuitability, it is quite possible that
the applicant was suffering from a personality disorder while he was on
active duty, which was the basis of his display of poor judgment and his
inability to adapt to military life.

8.  Inasmuch as the applicant’s service was not totally honorable, as a
matter of equity, it would be in the interest of justice to upgrade his
discharge to general under honorable conditions.

BOARD VOTE:

ym______  rjwv_____  mbl_____  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
amendment of the ABCMR’s decision in Docket Number AC86-04115, dated 1 July
1987.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army
records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing that he was
discharged from the Army general under honorable conditions on 25 June
1970.




                                  ____Yolanda Maldonado_
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004103916                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |19870701                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041216                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19700625                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |CH 10/FOR THE GOOD OF THE SERVICE       |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  756  |144.8600.0000/PERSONALITY DISORDER      |
|2.  757                 |144.8601.0000/NO NP EVALUATION          |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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