IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  15 January 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140007622 


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 correction of her records to show she was discharged due to a medical condition; specifically, depression.

2.  The applicant states she was discharged because of suicide attempts.  She further states that she still suffers from depression and this will affect her getting service-connected care.

3.  The applicant provides her commander's request for her discharge for unsuitability.

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.  On 18 January 1968, the applicant enlisted in the Women's Army Corps for 3 years.  She completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 70A (Clerk).  On 16 January 1969, she reenlisted for 3 years.  The highest rank she held was specialist four/pay grade E-4.

3.  A Report of Neuropyschiatric Evaluation, dated 11 June 1969, shows the applicant had made four suicide attempts from 4-10 June 1969.  The first attempt was with an overdose of Librium and Ambar in response to a close friend's anger at her, the second attempt was a superficial cut in response to what the patient considered too early discharge from Kirk Army Hospital, the third was a deeper laceration of the upper forearm in response to a transfer, and the fourth attempt was a large dose of Librium and Darvon in response to receiving nonjudicial punishment.

	a.  The examiner stated that during the four times she was evaluated she exhibited no objective signs of depression or evidence of severe mental illness such as psychosis or thought disorder.  The examiner's diagnosis was unstable personality.  He stated that when she became angry about something, she made a suicide attempt, not to kill herself but rather to punish the person who had made her angry by inflicting guilt on that person.  Although the suicide attempts were not actually attempts to kill herself, she could have actually achieved that end by accident.

	b.  The examiner indicated the applicant had no evidence of a mental disease or defect of psychiatric significance or of sufficient severity to warrant disposition through military medical channels and that she was mentally responsible.  It was felt the applicant was not a candidate for psychotherapy and her retention in the service would have no benefit for the military.  It was therefore recommended that she be expeditiously separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness and Unsuitability).

4.  Her commander notified her that she was initiating administrative action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability.  The basis for that action was her behavioral and character disorder as demonstrated by repeated attempts to take her own life.  She informed the applicant of her rights.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed action initiated against her.

5.  The applicant consulted with counsel who advised her of the basis for her contemplated separation and its effects, the rights available to her, and the effect of a waiver of her rights.  After consulting with counsel, she acknowledged she could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued to her.  She waived her rights.  
6.  She indicated that she submitted a statement in her own behalf.  This statement is not available for review. 

7.  On 13 June 1969, her commander submitted a request that the applicant be discharged prior to expiration of her term of service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unsuitability.  The request shows the applicant's conduct ratings as "excellent" from January to March 1968, "good" from March to June 1968, "unknown" from June 1968 to March 1969, and "fair" from March to June 1969. 

8.  The separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability and directed she be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

9.  On 20 June 1969, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  Her DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows she was discharged under provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, with separation program number (SPN) 264 denoting unsuitability, character and behavioral disorders, with issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  She completed a total of 1 year, 5 months, and 3 days of net active service.

10.  Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability.  Paragraph 6b provided that an individual was subject to separation for unsuitability when one or more conditions existed, one of which was character and behavior disorders (as determined by medical authority).  When separation for unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record.

11.  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 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.

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 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 ABCMR does not grant requests for changes to discharges solely for the purpose of making an applicant eligible for benefits.  Each case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a change in his or her discharge.

2.  The evidence does not support her request for correction of her record to show she was discharged due to the medical condition of depression.

3.  A neuropyschiatric evaluation report shows she attempted suicide on four occasions.  She was evaluated after each suicide attempt and she exhibited no objective signs of depression or evidence of severe mental illness such as psychosis or thought disorder.  The examiner indicated she had no evidence of a mental disease or defect of psychiatric significance or of sufficient severity to warrant disposition through military medical channels and that she was mentally responsible.

4.  She was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unsuitability (character and behavior disorders).  The record supports the reason and authority for her discharge.  

5.  A separation for unsuitability with SPN 264 must include a diagnosis of a personality disorder made by a physician trained in psychiatry.  While all requirements of law and regulations, then in effect, were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, the Brotzman Memorandum required that the revised provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 be applied retroactively when reviewing applications for upgrade of discharges based on personality disorders.  Therefore, the applicant's application was reviewed using the revised criteria of Army Regulation 635-200.

6.  The Nelson Memorandum 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.  While her military personnel record indicates her behavior and performance did not meet those expected of military personnel, her record does not meet the "clear and demonstrable reasons" why a fully honorable discharge should not be given.  Therefore, it would be appropriate to upgrade the applicant's general, under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge based on her personality disorder and the absence of substantial instances of indiscipline.

7.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant is entitled to have her records corrected as shown 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:

	a.  issuing her an Honorable Discharge Certificate (DD Form 256A), dated
20 June 1969, in lieu of the General Discharge Certificate of the same date now held by her; and

	b.  issuing her a new DD Form 214 reflecting the above corrections.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is 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 correction of the records of the individual concerned to show she was discharged due to a medical condition; specifically, depression.


      ___________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)                                         AR20140007622



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140007622



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1