IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	 6 September 2012 

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120005000 


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 an upgrade of her general discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states she enlisted in the Army in 1970 and was discharged in September 1971.  She was born and raised in a small, poor town in Wisconsin and was the third oldest child in a family of nine brothers and three sisters, along with her parents.  Her father had a hard time supporting them all so her mother took a job to help feed the family.  When she was on active duty, her father asked her to come home to help take care of her 10 younger siblings.  She had to be proactive and asked to be discharged so she could return home.  She respectfully asks to have her general discharge upgraded to honorable.

3.  The applicant provides her DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).

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's records show she enlisted in the Women's Army Corps on 27 November 1970 at 19 years of age and she held military occupational specialty 71B (Clerk Typist).  On 24 June 1971, she was assigned to Fort Monroe, VA.

3.  On 12 August 1971, she underwent a mental hygiene examination at Fort Eustis, VA.  The examining physician noted the applicant had no record of disciplinary action and her conduct had been excellent during her 9 months of active service.  She came to the attention of her executive officer by her own initiative when she stated she became extremely depressed regarding her situation in the military.  He noted that the applicant indicated she wanted to get out of the Army, get married, and start a family.  The applicant also stated she did not intend to apply herself and did not feel she had the capacity to make a satisfactory adjustment.  The examining physician diagnosed her with passive-aggressive personality and psychiatrically cleared her for any administrative active deemed appropriate by the command. 

4.  On 13 September 1971, her immediate commander recommended that a board of officers be convened for the purpose of determining if separation action should be initiated against the applicant for unsuitability under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness and Unsuitability).  In the request, the commander stated discharge action against the applicant was recommended because of a character and behavior disorder as diagnosed by a competent medical authority and evidenced by an emotionally unstable personality.  The applicant's behavior had not been such as to merit disciplinary action but her emotionalism, nervousness, and erratic behavior had been disturbing to the women with whom she lived and worked.

5.  The commander further stated the applicant's performance of duty had been marginally adequate and marked by constant inconsistency during the period 24 June through 21 July 1971.  She had been frequently placed in quarters and therefore could not be relied on.  Her conduct and efficiency ratings had all been "excellent" except the efficiency rating from 22 July 1971 to the present had been "good."  Since her marginal duty performance was a product of her adjustment and not the result of a conscious desire to malinger, and since her conduct remained within acceptable bounds, the commander recommended that the applicant receive an honorable discharge.

6.  On 22 September 1971, the applicant consulted with legal counsel who advised her of the basis for the discharge action being initiated against her and of the procedures and rights available to her.  She acknowledged she understood she could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in the event a general discharge under honorable conditions was issued to her.  She waived consideration of her case by a board of officers, elected not to submit a statement on her own behalf, and waived representation by military counsel.

7.  On 23 September 1971, the separation authority approved her discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unsuitability and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  On 27 September 1971, she was discharged accordingly.

8.  Her DD Form 214 shows she was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-214 for unsuitability with an under honorable conditions character of service.  She completed 10 months and 1 day of creditable active service.

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

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), which superseded Army Regulation 635-212, 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 personality disorder must include a diagnosis of a personality disorder made by a physician trained in psychiatry.

11.  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 discharge upgrades based on personality disorders.

12.  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 an 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 record confirms the applicant's performance and conduct was excellent throughout her military service.  It appears she became depressed and disillusioned with military service and was diagnosed with a personality disorder.  Accordingly, her commander initiated separation action against her and recommended that she receive an honorable discharge based on her record of service.  However, the separation authority directed her discharge with an under honorable conditions character of service.

2.  Her separation action was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for separation were both proper and equitable at the time.  However, it now appears her overall service record and her diagnosed personality disorder warrant upgrading her discharge to fully honorable as directed by the above-referenced Army memoranda.  Therefore, she is entitled to an upgrade of her discharge to honorable.

BOARD VOTE:

____X____  ____X____  ____X____  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____ ____  _______  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined the evidence presented is 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:

* issuing the applicant a new DD Form 214 reflecting her character of service as honorable


* issuing the applicant an Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 27 September 1971, in lieu of the General Discharge Certificate of the same date now held by her



      ____________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)                                         AR20120005000



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120005000



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1