2. In effect, the applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. He feels that his discharge was unjust. He states that he is an honorable person, with self respect. 3. The applicant entered the Army on 26 July 1950. His enlistment record indicates that he had a hernia operation on 4 May 1950. The applicant was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina and completed training as an infantryman. On 10 September 1950 a doctor determined that the applicant was physically disqualified for airborne duty due to excessive lability of the nervous system with neurotic symptoms of the stomach on exercise. In January 1951 he was assigned to a signal unit at Fort Gordon, Georgia. 4. A 5 January 1951 letter from the applicant’s father to the applicant’s commanding officer requested that his son undergo a medical examination. The applicant’s father stated in his letter that his son had signed up for a medical discharge before leaving Fort Bragg, that he went into the service before he had fully recovered from a double hernia operation, and had been bothered with sinus trouble ever since he entered the service, that his son had a severe case of sinus trouble, and was mentally unbalanced at times. He stated that he did not think has son was physically or mentally capable to be in the Army because he was not able to hold a job as a civilian. 5. A 25 January 1951 report of physical condition indicates that the applicant had an inadequate personality with elements of traumatic neurosis and schizoid tendencies. He was given a physical profile of 1 1 1 1 1 3. A psychiatric consultant recommended that he be separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-369. 6. On 8 February 1951 the applicant’s commanding officer recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-369. That official stated that the applicant’s discharge was recommended because of the inability to find a job that he could do with any degree of proficiency. The applicant’s character was rated as excellent, his efficiency, unknown. The applicant had no disciplinary action, nor record of trial by court-martial. The applicant’s commanding officer attached with his request a copy of the 5 January 1951 letter from the applicant’s father. 7. On 2 March 1951 a board of officers met to determine if the applicant should be discharged from the Army. Testimony from both his current and former commanding officers and first sergeants indicate that the applicant was in a specialized unit, that he had a retiring personality, was capable of limited duties, and he was assigned jobs such as cleaning the day room or kitchen duty, which he did well and conscientiously, but that he could not perform any duties that required exertion because of his breathing problems. 8. The applicant testified that he tried to be a good soldier and do his duty. He was offered the opportunity for a discharge while at Fort Bragg, but turned it down. He stated that he had an accident when he was a civilian and it had affected his breathing. He stated that he had had two hernia operations. 9. The board found that the applicant had very limited capacities and capabilities, lacked the necessary physical stamina, and also had a schizoid personality, that the main basis for their recommendation was the psychiatric report that recommended the applicant be separated because of an inadequate personality. The board recommended that the applicant be discharged for unsuitability and that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. 10. On 16 March 1951 the separation authority approved the recommendations of the board. A 27 March 1951 report of medical examination indicates that the applicant was medically qualified for discharge and he was discharged on 28 March 1951. His conduct and efficiency ratings at the time of his discharge were both excellent. The applicant had 8 months and 4 days of service. 11. Army Regulation 615-369, then in effect, provided the policy and procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel for inaptitude, unsuitability (which meant a lack of the required degree of adaptability) or enuresis. Lack of adaptability could be caused by insufficient physical stamina; transient personality reactions; or character and behavior disorders such as schizoid, paranoid, cyclothymic, inadequate and immature personalities. The regulation could not be applied to persons who had any disqualifying mental or physical defect. Although a general discharge was customary for separation under this regulation, an honorable discharge was authorized. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant performed his duties well and conscientiously. He had no record of misconduct or disciplinary action. His character and efficiency ratings were both excellent at the time of his discharge. The applicant should have received an honorable discharge. 2. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records 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 honorably discharged from the Army on 28 March 1951 and that he be furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate. BOARD VOTE: GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION GRANT FORMAL HEARING DENY APPLICATION CHAIRPERSON