BOARD DATE:	  24 September 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130003345 


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 that the records of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show that he received an honorable discharge for medical reasons or a medical discharge, that he be credited with service from 14 January 1954 to 22 March 2012, that he be promoted to the rank of captain effective 11 March 2009, and that medical records be deleted from his records for the period of 28 August 1953 to 14 January 1954.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the FSM should have been honorably discharged or medically discharged.  She goes on to state that he was never officially discharged and that the general discharge belongs to a black male in California as do the medical records for the period 28 August 1953 to 
14 January 1954.  She further states that because he was not properly discharged he should be granted service credit for the period 14 January 1954 to 22 March 2012 and he should be promoted to the rank of captain effective 
11 March 2009.

3.  The applicant provides copies of photographs of the FSM, his birth and death certificates, a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States), his General Discharge Certificate, and a five-page summary of events.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The FSM was inducted on 9 December 1952 and was transferred to Fort Jackson, South Carolina for induction processing.  He was then transferred to Fort Belvoir, Virginia to undergo his basic training and training as a combat construction specialist on 14 January 1952.  He received orders to Camp Scott, California in August 1953. 

2.  While on leave en route to Camp Scott, the FSM was hospitalized in the Veterans Hospital in Jackson, Mississippi and was then transferred to the hospital at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

3.  The FSM underwent a psychiatric evaluation and was diagnosed as having an inadequate personality, severe, with pathological dependency on home, preoccupation with somatic complaints without organic basis, a dissociative episode which was then noted to be in remission, diffuse anxiety, and inability to adapt to military service.  The examining psychiatrist opined that his condition existed prior to service (EPTS) and that he was and is mentally responsible both to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  He recommended that the FSM be administratively discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-369 (Enlisted Men - Discharge - Inaptitude or Unsuitability).

4.  On 18 December 1953, he was directed to report before a board of officers to determine whether he should be administratively discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-369 for unsuitability.

5.  The FSM appeared before a board of officers on 21 December 1953 and noted that he had no disciplinary actions taken against him during his service.  After reviewing the available evidence, the board of officers afforded the FSM the opportunity to speak in his own behalf and to call witnesses in his own behalf which he declined.  The board of officers determined that there was no disqualifying mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant a medical discharge and recommended that he be discharged under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-369 for unsuitability.  The appropriate authority approved the findings and recommendations of the board of officers on 21 December 1953.

6.  On 14 January 1954, he was discharged under honorable conditions in the rank of private under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-369 due to unsuitability – Character and Behavior disorders rendering retention in service undesirable.  He had served 1 year, 1 month, and 6 days of service.

7.  There is no indication in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.  

8.  A review of the FSM’s official records fails to show any evidence to show that he was ever eligible or qualified for promotion to the rank of captain or that he was advanced beyond the rank of private.  There are also no documents in his military records that do not pertain to the FSM or that belong to another Soldier.  Additionally, there is no evidence to show that he served any more service than that which is reflected on his DD Form 214.

9.  Army Regulation 615-369, in effect at the time, provided guidance for the separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability based on a demonstrated lack of adaptability for military service because of a character and behavior disorder.  The individual could receive an honorable or general discharge when discharge was recommended.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, the regulation that superseded Army Regulation 615-369 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 a 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 upgrades 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 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows that the FSM’s administrative separation on 
14 January 1954 was accomplished in accordance with regulations then in effect.

2.  However, the FSM’s attitude, conduct and mental deficiency clearly indicate that he was unsuited to military life and the general discharge appears to be unduly harsh considering that the evidence of record shows he suffered from a character and behavior disorder.  It appears that due to this mental deficiency, as diagnosed by a psychiatrist, he was incapable of meeting the standards of the Army and was unable to consistently act/serve in a manner that would be considered normal behavior for most Soldiers.

3.  Given the absence of evidence to show otherwise, it must be presumed that the FSM clearly was not suited for military service from the very beginning.  Additionally, despite the lack of documented disciplinary action being taken against him, which is used to determine the characterization of discharge, he was separated from the service with a general discharge.  While the evidence shows that the FSM was unsuitable for military service, the above-mentioned memoranda should be applied to this case and his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.  

4.  There is no evidence to support promotion to the rank of captain or granting him additional service other than that which is reflected on his DD Form 214.  Additionally, his official military records contain only documents that pertain to the FSM and contain no documents belonging to another Soldier.  Accordingly, there appears to be no basis to grant those elements of the applicant’s request.

5.  In view of the foregoing, the FSM’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___X__  ____X____  ___X_____  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.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was discharged from the service with an Honorable Discharge Certificate on 14 January 1954 and that the Department of the Army issue to the applicant an Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated         14 January 1954, in lieu of the General Discharge Certificate now held by the FSM, and issue a new DD Form 214.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented was 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 promotion to the rank of captain, granting additional service and removing documents from the FSM’s official military records.  



      _______ _  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)                                         AR20130003345





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130003345



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1