IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  9 October 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140004185 


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, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states he needs his discharge upgraded because he wants to get United Services Automobile Association insurance and they won't accept his general discharge.

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

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 complete military records are not available for review.  A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members' records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973.  It is believed the applicant's records were lost or destroyed in that fire.  However, he provided his DD Form 214 which is sufficient to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.

3.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows, having had prior service, he enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 April 1954.  At the time of his discharge he held military occupational specialty 950.00 (Security Guard) and his last unit of assignment was Headquarters and Headquarters Company, Military District of Washington, Arlington, VA.

4.  The facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not available for review with this case.  However, the DD Form 214 he was issued for this period of service shows he was discharged on 26 October 1956 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unsuitability) by reason of unsuitability (separation program number (SPN) 264) with a general characterization of service.  

5.  There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

6.  Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, established the policy and provided procedures and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unsuitable for further military service due to inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, apathy, enuresis, alcoholism, and homosexuality.  An individual would normally be issued an honorable or a general discharge, as warranted by the individual's military record.  SPN 264 was the code to be used for separation for unsuitability.

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Separations) sets the general policies and procedures for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 3-7a states an honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 (superseded Army Regulation 635-212 and 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.  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.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's records are void of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge.  However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability with a general discharge.

2.  The ABCMR does not grant requests for upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for insurance or other benefits.  Every case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a change in his or her discharge.

3.  Unfortunately, the applicant's military records are not available for review with this case.  This makes consideration of the applicant's case under the Brotzman Memorandum and/or the Nelson Memorandum, impossible.  Generally, under this policy, 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.  

4.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed his separation processing was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  It is also presumed that the type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge were appropriate.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant the requested relief. 



BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____X____  ____X____  ____X____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



      _______ _   _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)                                         AR20140004185



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140004185



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1