IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  2 December 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100012723 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states at the time of his discharge he was incontinent and never provided a reason regarding the type and character of his discharge.

   a.  He states he has been employed by the Federal government and has received numerous commendations and awards.  He also states he suffered a major stoke in November 1992, which adversely impacted his retirement pension.  He adds he has always "carried his own weight" in life; however, he now requires assistance.

   b.  He states that he would like an explanation of the veterans' benefits that he qualifies for with his general discharge under honorable conditions.  

3.  The applicant provides copies of two Job Element Appraisals, ten certificates, and his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant enlisted and entered active duty in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 1 July 1960.  Upon completion of training he was awarded military occupational specialty 140.00 (Field Artillery Basic).

3.  A Report of Neuropsychiatric Examination shows the applicant was seen by a psychiatrist at the Mental Hygiene Consultation Service, Fort Lewis, Washington, on 7 April 1961.
   
   a.  The diagnosis was "immaturity with symptomatic habit chronic severe, manifested by enuresis.  Impairment:  Marked, for further military service."  The psychiatrist added, "…this young Soldier with less than one years' service has a long history of enuresis.  He also tends to react impulsively and immaturely to life's situation; however, his major problem in the Army appears to be due to frequent bed-wetting."  He added, "[i]t is the opinion of the undersigned that the [applicant's] enuresis is a manifestation of a longstanding immature habit reaction."

   b.  The psychiatrist stated, "[the applicant] is not insane, possesses sufficient mental capacity to know the difference between right and wrong, should be able to adhere to the right and refrain from the wrong and is considered mentally responsible for his acts.  He has no mental disease or defect which warrant his appearance before a PEB [Physical Evaluation Board] or other disposition through medical channels."
   
   c.  The psychiatrist recommend the applicant be discharged from the service as expeditiously as possible under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 [Personnel Separations – Unsuitability] for unsuitability.

4.  On 5 June 1961, the company commander recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209.  The commander stated the reason for the proposed separation was the applicant's diagnosis of enuresis.  The commander indicated the applicant had no record of court-martial.


5.  On 5 June 1961, the applicant voluntarily acknowledged with his signature that he had been advised and counseled on the basis for the recommended discharge action, and that he was afforded the opportunity of requesting counsel.
He indicated he did not request counsel; he did not request that his case be reviewed by a board of officers; he waived a hearing of his case; and he did not elect to submit a statement in his own behalf.

6.  On 6 June 1961, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability and directed that a DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate) be issued.

7.  A DA Form 664 (Serviceman's Statement Concerning Application for Compensation from the Veterans Administration [VA]), dated 29 June 1961, shows the applicant was advised to apply for compensation from the VA by completing the appropriate form and submitting it to the VA.  The form shows the applicant decided not to file an application for such compensation at that time.

8.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged from the U.S. Army under honorable conditions on 30 June 1961, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, and issued a DD Form 257A.  At the time he had completed 1 year of net active service.

9.  There is no evidence of conviction by court-martial or any other adverse information in the applicant's military service records.

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

11.  In support of his application, the applicant provides the following documents.

	a.  Two Job Element Appraisals, dated 14 May 1986 and 27 November 1997, that document the applicant's performance as a warehouse worker from 11 May 1985 to 10 May 1986 and from 27 October 1990 to 26 October 1991.  His overall rating, on 19 November 1986, was outstanding and he received an incentive award.  On 29 November 1991, he was rated fully successful.

	b.  Ten certificates that include:

		(1)  Four Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Certificates of Award, dated 1 November 1984, 26 March 1987, July 1987, and 24 July 1989, issued to the applicant in recognition and appreciation for his noteworthy contribution to the effective and efficient operation of the IRS.

		(2)  A Performance Award, dated December 1991, in recognition and appreciation of the applicant's superior effort, dedication, and personal contribution to accomplishing the goals and mission of the IRS.

		(3)  A Certification of Completion of the Senior Companion Program Orientation in April 2006.

		(4)  Four certificates in recognition of the applicant's outstanding support of Catholic Charities.

12.  Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and prescribed procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsuitability.  Action would be taken to discharge an individual for unsuitability only 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 character and behavior disorders, disorders of intelligence and transient personality disorders due to acute or special stress, and apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively.  Evaluation by a medical officer was required and, when psychiatric indications were involved, the medical officer must have been a psychiatrist, if one was available.  A general or an honorable discharge was considered appropriate.  

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Army Regulation 635-200, which superseded Army Regulation 635-209, 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.

	b.  Chapter 3, 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, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

	c.  Chapter 3, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory, but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier's separation specifically allows such characterization.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his records should be corrected to show he was honorably discharged because he was discharged based solely on enuresis.

2.  The applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability was proper and administratively correct.  All requirements of law and regulations were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  In addition, at the time, the characterization of service directed was appropriate and equitable.

3.  Army Regulation 635-209 was superseded subsequent to the applicant's discharge from the Army and, 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.  There is no evidence that the applicant had a record of court-martial or any other adverse actions during the period of service under review.  Therefore, as a matter of justice, the applicant's military service records should be corrected to show he was honorably discharged effective 30 June 1961.

4.  The applicant is advised that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs website at: www.vba.va.gov provides information on Federal government veterans' benefits and also links to various state websites for information on state government veterans' benefits.

BOARD VOTE:

____X___  ___X____  ___X____  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.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:
	a.  issuing the applicant a DD Form 256A (Honorable Discharge Certificate), dated 30 June 1961, in lieu of the General Discharge Certificate of the same date now held by the applicant and

	b.  issuing the applicant a new DD Form 214 reflecting the above corrections.



      _____________X____________
                 CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100012723



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100012723



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1