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 Boards 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 applicants 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
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100131C070208
All of the applicant’s military records are not available to the Board for review. Records show that the applicant's request for upgrade of his "blue" discharge was considered twice by Department of the Army Military Discharge Review Boards. Evidence shows that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time and that the type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088150C070403
This version of the regulation that came into effect 1 July 1947, the month after the applicant’s discharge, did authorize the issue of either a GD or UD for separation for unfitness (undesirable habits or traits of character). The Board notes the applicant’s contention that in order to be fair, the Board must grant him an honorable discharge based on the facts of his case being similar to case which resulted in the Board recommending an upgrade of a UD to a GD. However, the Board further...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00116
_________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that, on 31 January 1945, he was discharged with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions). Exhibit B. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2005-00116 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606716C070209
On 7 March 1944 his commanding officer recommended that the former soldier be discharged. He stated that he always had an uncontrollable temper and if anyone said anything cross to him, he would strike him. It appears that the intent of Army Regulation 635-209 was to change the policy for separating soldiers with undesirable habits and traits of character, recognizing that these unsuitable habits included chronic alcoholism, and soldiers separated for unsuitability should receive a general...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013340
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant provides the following additional documentary evidence in support of his application: a. WD AGO Form 53-58 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation, General Discharge), dated 28 June 1948. b. However, the applicants WD AGO Form 53-58 shows he was separated on 28 June 1948 in accordance with Army Regulation 615-368 (Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character Discharge), by reason of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007323C070208
On 2 January 1946, the Board of Officers recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 615- 369 on account of inaptness. The Board noted that the "Blue" discharge provides no characterization of service and was used because the applicant's service did not show a testimonial of honest and faithful service required for an honorable discharge. Records show the applicant should have discovered the error or injustice now under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008071
On 15 July 1954, his immediate commander requested a board of officers be convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Men - Discharge - Unfitness (Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character)) for the purpose of determining the applicant's fitness for retention. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 with an undesirable discharge. The regulation stated that discharge, if recommended, would be for unfitness,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017703
The military medical officer stated the applicant was undesirable as a Soldier. On 18 January 1956, the applicant's immediate commander requested a board of officers be convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Men - Discharge - Unfitness (Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character)) for the purpose of determining the applicant's fitness for retention. The board found him unfit for retention and recommended his discharge with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9610964C070209
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: The applicant was inducted into the Army on 28 October 1952. The testimony of the board proceedings indicates that the applicant was not interested in doing his job, had a poor attitude, and was lax in his military duties. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006705
Also on 12 May 1952, the applicant's immediate commander requested a board of officers be convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Men - Discharge - Unfitness (Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character)) for the purpose of determining the applicant's fitness for retention due to his habitual AWOL. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The board found him unfit for retention and...