APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration of his request for upgrade of his Blue (undesirable) discharge which was denied by the Board on 25 June 1975.  Since documents reflecting the Board’s consideration at that time are no longer available, it is impossible to determine if the evidence and arguments now presented are new and different.  Therefore, the case is reviewed de novo.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was discharged for undesirable habits and traits of character, but did nothing wrong while in military service.  He adds that Army doctors diagnosed him as having a “mental abnormality” and the VA (Department of Veterans Affairs) has characterized his service as honorable for purposes of VA entitlements.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  Counsel made no statement.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973.  Information herein was obtained from alternate sources.

He was born on 25 April 1922 and was inducted into the Army of the United States for the duration of World War II plus 6 months on 16 February 1943.  Upon reporting for induction, he was discovered to have a chronic urethral discharge which was characterized as non-specific urethritis (NSU).

The applicant was admitted to several hospitals, including: the Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, Station Hospital from 23 February 1943 to 4 March 1943; the Fort Clark, Texas, Station Hospital from an undetermined date in April 1943 to 15 June 1943 and 1 August 1943 to 16 August 1943; the Brooke General Hospital, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, from 30 June 1943 to 30 July 1943, and 17 August 1943 to 1 October 1943.

While he was in the hospital for treatment of NSU, he boasted of drug and alcohol usage and, on occasion, was found under the influence of intoxicants (alcohol and/or drugs) while on the hospital ward.  He was transferred to the Brooke General Hospital Neuropsychiatric Ward for observation and it was determined that he was suffering from “Constitutional Psychopathic State, inadequate personality, manifested by marijuana addiction, numerous alcoholic debauches, an egocentric, braggadocio attitude, poor judgment, lack of proper respect for vested authority, failure to profit by experience, and inadaptability.”  He was recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 615-368.

The applicant was separated on 1 October 1943 with a Blue discharge.  He appealed to this Board in 1974 and was denied on 25 June 1975.  He requested reconsideration in 1987 and was denied based upon insufficient evidence of error or injustice and his failure to provide new evidence.

On 20 November 1984, the VA determined that the applicant’s military service was honorable for VA purposes.  The VA based this decision on the fact that the applicant did not commit any offenses while in the military.

Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for reasons of unfitness.  The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members guilty of repeated misconduct or undesirable habits or traits of character were subject to separation.  A Blue (or undesirable) discharge was normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement

2.  The applicant served on active duty for approximately 8 months.  When he reported for induction, he had NSU and spent almost his entire period of service in various military hospitals.  He also had a drug and alcohol abuse problem.

3.  Medical personnel observed the applicant in a drug and/or alcohol-induced stupor on several occasions; the applicant even bragged about his use of illegal drugs.  This drug use was criminal and could have resulted in trial by court-martial.

4.  Medical authorities at Brooke General Hospital determined that the applicant had an “inadequate personality” and recommended his discharge under applicable regulations.  That discharge was accomplished properly and in accordance with regulations then in effect.

5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director