IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  25 April 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120016959 


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 his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant does not provide an explanation. 

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his 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 was inducted into the Army of the United States on 24 April 1972.  He completed basic combat training.

3.  In September 1972, his application for separation as a conscientious objector was disapproved because the Conscientious Objector Review Board determined his professed views became fixed prior to his entry into military service.

4.  On 2 November 1972, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of disobeying a lawful command (to draw his weapon and go to training).  He was sentenced to forfeit $100.00. 

5.  On 7 November 1972, he underwent a mental status evaluation and no significant mental illness was noted and he was found him to be mentally responsible.  

6.  On 13 December 1972, the unit commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability) for unsuitability.  The commander cited the following reasons for his recommendation for separation:

* applicant's application for separation as a conscientious objector was disapproved
* his attitude toward the military was unsatisfactory and despite repeated counseling he failed to make any attempt to improve himself
* he refused to train with a weapon and has been court-martialed

7.  He consulted with counsel, waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived a personal appearance, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He also acknowledged that he understood he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in the event a discharge under conditions other than honorable was issued to him.

8.  On 19 December 1972, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed the issuance of a general discharge.

9.  He was discharged on 10 January 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability due to character and behavior disorder with a general discharge and the issuance of a DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate).  He completed 8 months and 17 days of total active service.

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 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and prescribed procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel for unfitness and 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 and he met retention medical standards.  Unsuitability included inaptitude; character and behavior disorders; apathy, defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively; alcoholism; and enuresis.  A general under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge was considered appropriate.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) 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. 

13.  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.

14.  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, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.






DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although there is no evidence of record that the applicant was diagnosed with a character and behavior disorder by a psychiatrist, it appears the separation authority approved his discharge for unsuitability due to a character and behavior disorder with a general discharge on 19 December 1972.

2.  Subsequent to the applicant's discharge the regulation was changed following settlement of a civil suit.  In view of the change, the general discharge issued to the applicant at the time of separation is inconsistent with the standards for discharge by reason of unsuitability, character and behavior disorder (now known as personality disorder) which subsequently became effective.  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. 

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.  voiding his current DD Form 214 with an under honorable conditions character of service;

	b.  issuing him a new DD Form 214 with an honorable character of service; and




	c.  issuing him an Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 10 January 1973, in lieu of the general discharge of the same date he now holds.




      ___________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)                                         AR20120016959





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120016959



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1