BOARD DATE:	  2 January 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130007682 


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 his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. 

2.  The applicant states that at the time of his discharge at the age of 21 as an alcoholic, he realized he was unable to succeed as a model citizen in society.  However, now at the age of 73 as a father, grandfather and great grandfather he has been able to put this error in judgment behind him.

3.  The applicant provides a letter from his pastor.

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 in the Regular Army with a moral waiver for an alcohol related offense on 9 February 1960 for a period of 3 years.  He completed his basic training at Fort Hood, Texas and his advanced individual training as a medical corpsman at Fort Sam Houston, Texas and was transferred to what is now know as Yuma Proving Grounds, Arizona on 8 July 1960.

3.  On 14 October 1960, he was transferred to a medical battalion in Germany for duty as an ambulance orderly.  After being assigned there for approximately 
1 month, the applicant began to exhibit signs of nervousness when overtaxed in his duties or when asked to do something.  His commander interviewed him and he was very nervous and tearful and told his commander that he had tried and tried but he felt that the Army was too much for his nerves and he could not stand the strain any longer for he felt it was impairing his health.

4.  The commander referred the applicant for a psychiatric evaluation on 1 March 1961 and the psychiatrist informed the commander that while the final decision rested with the commander, he recommended that the applicant be administratively discharged from the service for unsuitability due to a character and behavior disorder.

5.  The commander counseled the applicant and told him of his desire to help improve his condition through counseling and job assignments.  However, the commander’s attempts were futile and on 15 July 1961, unit punishment was imposed against the applicant for being drunk and disorderly.  On 31 July 1961, unit punishment was again imposed against the applicant for disorderly conduct. 

6.  On 8 August 1961, the applicant was notified by his commander that he had requested a board of officers be convened to determine if he should be eliminated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unsuitability).  The applicant declined the opportunity to consult with counsel, waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

7.  On 18 November 1961, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

8.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 21 December 1961, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, due to a character and behavior disorder.  He had served 1 year, 10 months, and 13 days of active service. 

9.  There is no evidence 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.  

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 paragraph 3-7a provides 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.

11.  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 were 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 applicant’s administrative separation on 21 December 1961 was accomplished in accordance with regulations then in effect.

2.  However, the general discharge appears to be unduly harsh considering that the applicant had a long-standing basic character and behavior disorder which in all likelihood existed prior to entering the Army and may tend to exist permanently.

3.  Consequently, it appears that the above-mentioned memoranda should be applied to this case and that his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.

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

BOARD VOTE:

_X____  ___X_____  ____X____  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  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 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 separated from the service with an honorable discharge on 21 December 1961.

2.  Issuing to him an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 21 December 1961, in lieu of the General Discharge Certificate of the same date held by him.




      __________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)                                         AR20130007682





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130007682



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1