2.  In effect, the applicant requests that the undesirable discharge of his deceased father, a former soldier, be upgraded to honorable.  

3.  The applicant states that his father was judged by his race and not the merits of his case.  He states that his father’s ability to serve in the Army was diminished by financial, personal, and deprived background problems.  His father was a full blooded Winnebago Indian raised in poverty and deprivation.  His father underwent verbal abuse and racial discrimination many times during his Army service, and struck an officer and an NCO because of verbal abuse.  The only way his father could deal with the racism was to use alcohol, impairing his ability to serve.  The failure of the leadership to require respect and show dignity to native Americans was contemptible.  His father was subject to the inequality of the military justice system.  Clemency is warranted and long overdue.  

4.  The applicant submits letters from a social worker, the chairman of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, a minister, and the former executive director of the Winnebago Tribe, all who attest to the former soldier’s good character and helpfulness.

5.  The former soldier entered the Army on 20 February 1943 and was assigned to Camp Campbell, Kentucky.

6.  On 22 July 1943 the former soldier was arraigned, tried, and found guilty by a special court-martial for striking an officer and for being drunk and disorderly.  On 
14 January 1944 he was arraigned, tried, and found guilty by 
a special court-martial for striking an NCO. 

7.  Medical records show that the former soldier stated that he always had severe temper tantrums, that he began to drink when he was 15 years old, and would frequently lose his temper and get into fights when under the influence of alcohol.  He stated that in 1940 his temper became worse and that he was much quicker to anger.  This continued while in the Army.  He believed that some of the men picked on him and he just hauled off and struck them.  He had to leave school because of his temper.

8.  A 1 March 1944 hospital disposition board indicates a diagnosis of constitutional psychopathic state and emotional instability that existed prior to his induction, manifested by a history of an uncontrollable temper with assaulting behavior, and an addiction to alcohol.  Onset of the symptoms was his childhood in Winnebago, Nebraska.  He had symptoms of depression, despondency, crying, irritability, and impulsive behavior.  His insight and judgment were intact.  He was incapacitating because of his uncontrollable temper and his outbursts with aggressive and assaultive behavior.  His disability was permanent and existed prior to his induction.  The board recommended that he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-360. 

9.  On 7 March 1944 his commanding officer recommended that the former soldier be discharged.  On 10 March a board of officers convened to determine whether he should be discharged from the Army.  The board heard testimony from a doctor, his company commander, first sergeant, and members of his unit, who attested to his uncontrollable temper - fighting without any provocation, and his excessive drinking.  The medical officer stated that the former soldier had constant headaches, which made him irritable, and the entire psychiatric staff of the hospital opined that his condition was psychopathic.  A member of his unit stated that he was a good soldier when he was not drinking.  The first sergeant testified that his performance of duty was good when he kept his temper in check.

10.  The board found that the former soldier had undesirable habits and traits and recommended that he be discharged because of those undesirable habits and traits.  On 
13 March 1994 the convening authority approved the recommendations of the board.
  
11.  On 18 March 1944 the separation authority approved the results of the board proceedings and directed that the former soldier be given a Blue (undesirable) discharge.

12.  On 21 March 1944 the former soldier underwent a physical examination and was found to be physically and mentally sound. He was discharged at Camp Campbell on 23 March 1944.

13.  A 28 June 1974 VA rating decision to determine the sanity of the former soldier indicates that the former soldier had stated that he began to drink at age 15, and that when under the influence of alcohol, would frequently lose his temper, get into fights, and afterward would remember nothing.  He stated that he always had severe temper tantrums and that he walked in his sleep and had nightmares.  He stated that he always had an uncontrollable temper and if anyone said anything cross to him, he would strike him.  The VA determined that insanity was not established.

14.  Army Regulation 615-360, in effect at the time, set forth
the policy and procedures for separation of enlisted
personnel.  Section VIII provided for cases of ineptness
(lack of a required degree of adaptability) and for
those who demonstrated undesirable habits and traits of
character.  This section stated the basic War Department policy that no man would be separated prior to the
expiration of his term of service unless no useful
service could be obtained from him.  Normally a blue
discharge certificate stating only the pertinent
regulation, but neither a reason for separation nor a
characterization of service, was used to identify this
other than honorable discharge.

15.  Army Regulation 635-209, superseded Army Regulation 
615-360 and set forth the policy and prescribed procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsuitability.  Action was to be taken to discharge an individual for unsuitability when,
in the commander's opinion, it was clearly established
that: the individual was unlikely to develop
sufficiently to participate in further military training
and/or become a satisfactory soldier or the individual's
psychiatric or physical condition was such as to not
warrant discharge for disability.  Unsuitability
included inaptitude, character and behavior disorders,
disorders of intelligence and transient personality
disorders due to acute or special stress, apathy,
defective attitude, and inability to expend effort
constructively, enuresis, chronic alcoholism, and
homosexuality.  Evaluation by a medical officer was

required and, when psychiatric indications are involved,
the medical officer must be a psychiatrist, if one was
available.  A general or honorable discharge was
considered appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The separation of the applicant’s deceased father in 1944 because of undesirable habits and traits of character was proper and warranted, based on his behavior as evidenced by his two courts-martial and the testimony elicited during his separation board.

2.  There is no evidence that indicates that racial discrimination or verbal abuse was a cause of the former soldier’s actions.

3.  The former solder’s post service conduct and behavior was excellent as attested to by the letters of support from community leaders. 

4.  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 or honorable discharge.  This regulation represents an enhancement of the deceased soldier’s rights, and therefore relief is warranted as an exception to policy.

5.  The former soldier’s discharge should be upgraded.  However, the quality of his service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty, as evidenced by his record, and an honorable discharge is not considered appropriate.  His undesirable discharge should be upgraded to general.

6.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the records of the former soldier as recommended below.


RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the former deceased soldier was discharged under honorable conditions (general) on 23 March 1944.

2.  That so much of the application as in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




		                           
		        CHAIRPERSON