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 applicants father to the applicants commanding officer requested that his son undergo a medical examination. The applicants 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 applicants commanding officer recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-369. That official stated that the applicants discharge was recommended because of the inability to find a job that he could do with any degree of proficiency. The applicants character was rated as excellent, his efficiency, unknown. The applicant had no disciplinary action, nor record of trial by court-martial. The applicants commanding officer attached with his request a copy of the 5 January 1951 letter from the applicants 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 applicants 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
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027232
The applicant requests that his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States) be corrected to show his service is characterized as honorable. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)) provides that the Board begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has not provided any documentation or convincing argument supporting his contention that he should have been...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061045C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT STATES : The applicant submitted three applications. The Board noted the applicant’s request to show his narrative reason for separation on his General Discharge Certificate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004034
On 25 January 1955, the applicant's commander referred him to an administrative separation board based on the medical personnel recommendations. There is no evidence showing he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. voiding the general discharge now held by the applicant; b. showing he was discharged from the service with an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007539
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. The applicant's military records are not available to the Board for review. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04029
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04029 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. The board recommended discharge due to unsuitability. The applicant was discharged on 18 May 1951.
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 | CY2002 | 2002067680C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. There is no indication in the available records that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003345
The applicant requests that the records of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to show that he received an honorable discharge for medical reasons or a medical discharge, that he be credited with service from 14 January 1954 to 22 March 2012, that he be promoted to the rank of captain effective 11 March 2009, and that medical records be deleted from his records for the period of 28 August 1953 to 14 January 1954. The FSM appeared before a board of officers on...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003453C070205
Army Regulation 615-368, also stated, in pertinent part, that a board of officers would recommend that the individual be either discharged because of unfitness, unsuitability, or retained in the service. It is also noted that the applicant now states he began drinking at the age of 12 and that alcohol was a large part of his life; however, his record of service shows that he served honorably and without any alcohol related incidents during the period 14 April 1948 to 13 April 1951. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002083291C070215
APPLICANT STATES : That he had an unblemished service record in Korea. Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, provided the authority for discharging enlisted personnel for unfitness. Based upon the nature of the applicant’s discharge and the characterization of service he received, it must be presumed that the applicant’s father’s failing health and eventual death was taken into consideration by the separation authority.