RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         3 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050004049


      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. Yvonne Foskey                 |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Thomas D. Howard              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Infante                  |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Carmen Duncan                 |     |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 (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that while he was serving on active
duty, he was suffering from severe depression and placed on a high dosage
of tranquilizers.  He further states that he was not given proper time to
get better before being recommended for a GD.  He also states that because
of his state of mind, he was unable to make wise decisions.  Therefore,
when he was asked to agree to his discharge, he signed a waiver of his
rights and accepted the discharge.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his
application:  Self-Authored Letter, dated 10 March 2005; Review Boards
Agency, St Louis Letter, dated 10 September 2004; Separation Document (DD
Form 214); Discharge Certificate; Separation Packet; and 5 pages of a
Medical Record Report (VA Form 10-9034a).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 11 September 1964.  The application submitted in this case
is dated 8 March 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 he was inducted into the United
States Army and entered active duty on 15 April 1963.  He was trained in,
awarded, and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 767.10
(Medical Supply Specialist), and the highest rank he attained while serving
on active duty was private first class (PFC).
4.  While serving at Fort Sheridan, Illinois, the applicant underwent two
separate psychiatric evaluations on 15 June 1964 and 13 July 1964,
respectively.  The final evaluation indicated his condition was the result
of a character and behavior disorder (Paranoid Personality Disorder).

5.  On 26 August 1964, the unit commander recommended the applicant’s
separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, by reason of
unsuitability (character and behavior disorder), and that he receive a GD.
In the request, the unit commander cited the applicant’s several reprimands
and admonishments as the reasons for taking the separation action.  He
further indicated that the applicant continued to shy away from people he
worked with and on occasion was belligerent with people in charge. Finally,
he commented that there had been little improvement on the applicant's
condition.

6.  On 11 September 1964, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
discharge for unsuitability and directed that he receive a GD.  The DD Form
214 issued to the applicant on the date of his separation, 11 September
1964, confirms he was separated after completing a total of 1 year, 4
months, and
27 days of active military service.  Contrary to the character of discharge
approved by the separation authority, the DD Form 214 erroneously indicates
the applicant’s character of service was “Honorable” in Item 13a (Character
of Service).  The separation document also verifies that the applicant was
separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 and the reason
for his separation was unsuitability (character and behavior disorder).

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

8.  Army Regulation 635-209, 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, alcoholism,
or homosexual tendencies.  Members separated under these provisions could
receive either an HD or GD.

9.  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 635-209.

10.  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.  A DA 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.

11.  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.

12.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant accurately documents that he
received a General Discharge Certificate (DD Form 257A) in Item 13b (Type
of Certificate Issued); however, it erroneously indicates his service was
characterized as “Honorable” in Item 13a (Character of Service).  The
evidence of record confirms the separation authority approved the
applicant’s separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, by
reason of unsuitability (character and behavior disorder), and directed
that he receive a GD.


2.  The record further shows the applicant’s separation processing was
accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations in effect at the
time.  However, under current regulations, members separated by reason of
personality disorder (character and behavior disorder) must be issued an HD
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.

3.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s disciplinary record
does not rise to the level that supports a GD in cases of personality
disorder.  Therefore, his discharge is too harsh under current standards.
As a result, it would be appropriate to upgrade his discharge to an HD in
the interest of equity.

BOARD VOTE:

___TDH _  __JI ____  ___CD__  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
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 showing that he received an honorable
discharge on 11 September 1964, in lieu of the general, under honorable
conditions discharge of the same date he now holds; by amending Item 13b of
his DD Form 214 to show he was issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate;
and by issuing him a correction to his separation document that reflects
these changes.




                                  _____Thomas D. Howard ___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050004049                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005-11-03                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD,                                     |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1964/09/11                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-209 . . . . .                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unsuitability                           |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schneider                           |
|ISSUES         1.       |110                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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