RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        11 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060004266


      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. Wanda L. Waller               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Patrick McGann                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. David Gallagher               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Roland Venable                |     |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 that his general discharge be upgraded to
honorable or changed to a medical discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that when he finished basic training
he had flat feet with no arches.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 20 December 1965.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 8 March 2006.

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 Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated

5 May 1965, shows his feet were rated “normal.”  He enlisted on 17 May 1965
for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed basic combat training.


4.  On 1 November 1965, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation
and was diagnosed with schizoid personality, chronic, severe; manifested by
inability to adjust to military environment; immaturity; labile control of
emotional responses to minor environmental stresses resulting in
uncontrollable outbursts of temper and weeping; repeated complaints and
sick call visits in the absence of significant positive physical findings;
withdrawal from interpersonal relationships; and symptoms of chronic
anxiety with some secondary depression manifested by loss of appetite and
insomnia.  The psychiatrist recommended an administrative separation.

5.  On 17 November 1965, the applicant was notified of his pending
separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, for
unsuitability due to character and behavior disorders.  He elected to waive
counsel, waived a hearing before a board of officers, and elected not to
submit a statement on his own behalf.  He also acknowledged that he
understood that if a general discharge was issued to him that he might
expect to encounter prejudice in civilian life.

6.  On 26 November 1965, the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to
separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209.  He cited
that the applicant had been counseled [by his chain of command] and treated
by medical personnel; however, he did not respond to either and continued
to lose control of his emotions by outbursts of temper and weeping.  He
stated that the applicant was not a disciplinary problem but failed to
adjust to his environment because he believed that he was sick.  He
recommended a general discharge because the applicant was unsuitable for
service.

7.  On 3 December 1965, the separation authority approved the
recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be furnished
a general discharge.  This letter also states that a separation physical
examination was completed on
19 November 1965; however, this medical report is not available.

8.  On 20 December 1965, the applicant was discharged with a general
discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability
due to character and behavior disorders.  He had served 7 months and 4 days
of active creditable service.

9.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant had a medical
condition prior to his discharge.

10.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of
limitations.

11.  Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, set forth the policy
and prescribed procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel for
unsuitability.  Action was to be taken to discharge an individual for
unsuitability when, in the commander's opinion, it was clearly established
that:  the individual was unlikely to develop sufficiently to participate
in further military training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier or the
individual's psychiatric or physical condition was such as to not warrant
discharge for disability.  Unsuitability included inaptitude, character and
behavior disorders, disorders of intelligence and transient personality
disorders due to acute or special stress, apathy, defective attitude, and
inability to expend effort constructively, enuresis, chronic alcoholism,
and homosexuality.  Evaluation by a medical officer was required and, when
psychiatric indications are involved, the medical officer must be a
psychiatrist, if one was available.  A general or honorable discharge was
considered appropriate.

12.  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.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable
discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits
provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the
quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis
added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization
would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be
resolved in favor of the individual.

14.  Title 10, United States Code, chapter 61, provides disability
retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform
the duties of his office, rank, grade or rating because of disability
incurred while entitled to basic pay.

15.  Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of
Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of
physical disability.  It states that the mere presence of impairment does
not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical
disability.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree
of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the
Soldier reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office,
grade, or rank.  It states that disability compensation is not an
entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury;
rather, it is provided to Soldiers whose service is interrupted and they
can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical
disability incurred or aggravated in service.  When a Soldier is being
processed for separation for reasons other than physical disability,
continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or
grade until the Soldier is scheduled for separation or retirement indicates
that a Soldier is fit.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation on 20 December 1965 was
accomplished in accordance with regulations then in effect.  His commander
had indicated that the applicant was not a disciplinary problem.

2.  However, during processing for discharge, the applicant was diagnosed
with a schizoid personality by a psychiatrist.

3.  In view of the foregoing, the general discharge issued to the applicant
at the time of his separation is inconsistent with the standards for
discharge for unsuitability which became effective in June 1976.  Since
these new standards retroactively authorized an honorable discharge in
cases where Soldiers diagnosed with a personality disorder were separated
for unsuitability, the applicant in this case should receive an honorable
discharge consistent with these standards.

4.  Although the applicant contends that he had flat feet and no arches
after completing basic combat training, there is no medical evidence of
record that shows he had any medical condition prior to his discharge on 20
December 1965.  There is also no evidence of record to show he was ever
medically unfit to perform his duties.  Therefore, there is no basis for
granting a medical discharge.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 20 December 1965; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 19
December 1968.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of
limitations; however, based on the available evidence, it would be in the
interest of justice to excuse failure to timely file in this case.









BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

PM_____  _DG____  _RV_____  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 of the Department of the
Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the
individual concerned was separated from the service with an Honorable
Discharge Certificate on 20 December 1965.

2.  That the Department issue to him an Honorable Discharge Certificate,
dated
20 December 1965, in lieu of the general discharge of the same date now
held by him.

3.  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
a medical discharge.




                                  __Patrick McGann______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060004266                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061011                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19651220                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-209                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unsuitability                           |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |108.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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