2.  The former service member’s (FSM) widow requests that his blue (under other than honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The FSM died on 7 April 1995.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that the FSM’s ability to serve was severely hampered by his youth, immaturity, mental capacity and alcoholism.  The FSM himself had previously stated that the reason for his frequent AWOL’s was that as the oldest member of his family with parents in poor health, he believed it was necessary to leave the Army to assist at home when the need arose.

4.  The FSM was inducted on 7 November 1941 and discharged pursuant to the finding of a board of officers on 4 November 1944 and was issued a blue discharge.  During his term of service he had 456 days of AWOL and four periods of confinement totaling 161 days.  He accumulated another 10 days of lost time as a result of being unable to perform his duty because of alcohol abuse.

5.  Prior to the Board of Officers proceedings the FSM underwent a psychiatric evaluation during which it was determined that he had a mental age of 10 years, had completed the fifth grade of school (at age 15) and had been drinking alcohol on a daily basis since he was 10 years old. The examining psychiatrist, who would later testify before the board of officers concerning his findings, stated that the FSM did not have the capacity to be rehabilitated nor did he believe that he would ever be a good soldier.  He was diagnosed with an inadequate personality and borderline intelligence.

6.  On 11 October 1944 the FSM appeared before the board of officers to determine whether he should be separated from the service for undesirable habits and traits of character.  The board decided that he should be discharged and thereafter, he was separated as noted above.

7.  On 27 June 1980 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the FSM’s request for upgrade of his discharge.

8.  On 19 May 1993 this Board denied his request to upgrade his discharge.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Considering the FSM’s mental age and lack of development, it is highly questionable whether he should have ever been permitted to enter the Army, notwithstanding that it was a time of war.

2.  There is also a serious doubt that an admitted alcoholic young man with the mentality of a 10-year old was capable of understanding the board of officers proceedings, their ramifications, and his rights in the process.

3.  Also, the Board notes that the FSM’s misconduct consisted solely of lost time, and although there was extensive lost time which is not condoned, the Board can understand how going AWOL might seem like a reasonable response to a soldier of the FSM’s mental capacity when he feels he is needed at home.  

4.  Although the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions may have been appropriate at the time, considering that the country was at war, the Board now concludes, considering the passage of more than 52 years since his discharge and under the circumstances of this case, that the interests of justice would best be served by removing from the record of the FSM the stigma of a discharge issued under other than honorable conditions.  To fail to do so would be inequitable and unjust.

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

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was separated from the service with an honorable discharge on 4 November 1944.

BOARD VOTE:  

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

		                           
		        CHAIRPERSON