| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Vic Whitney | Analyst |
| Ms. June Hajjar | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Harry B. Oberg | Member | |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Member |
2. The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge characterization of under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to under honorable conditions.
3. The applicant states that he only served for 4 months and could not complete infantry training because of back problems. He tried to change his service to a mechanic but he was discharged instead.
4. The applicant’s military records were lost or destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center. This review was accomplished with records from alternate sources.
5. The applicant was recalled (inducted) on 25 June 1943. He was assigned to Camp Croft, South Carolina for infantry training but it appears that he failed to complete training. Effective 30 October 1943, he was discharged in the rank of private under the authority of Army Regulation 615-360, section eight, for inadaptability. There is no discharge document in the available record.
6. The applicant’s final pay voucher states that he received a discharge (“Without Honor) after 4 months and 8 days creditable service. The form also states that he had no lost time.
7. A Certificate of Military Service prepared by the National Personnel Records Center on 29 June 1998, states that the applicant’s service was characterized as other than honorable. The form states that it was issued in the absence of a copy of the actual Report of Separation (discharge document).
8. Army Regulation 615-360, in effect at the time, provided for the discharge of enlisted personnel. Section eight provided for the discharge of soldiers for inaptness, lack of adaptability, enuresis, habits or traits of undesirable character, and physically disqualified through own misconduct. A Blue Discharge was considered normal.
8. Historical information maintained by the staff of the Board shows that the “Blue Discharge” came into use in 1918. It was printed on blue paper and replaced the “Discharge Without Honor”. Its use was also expanded to include a discharge for unfitness and to characterize service that had been less than “good”. Historical records also show that Blue Discharges were issued to individuals whose service was not dishonorable, but were not entitled to an Honorable Discharge Certificate.
9. In July 1947 the Army adopted two replacement discharges for the Blue Discharge. The general discharge was designed to eliminate criticism of the Blue Discharge that was issued to those who simply could not adjust to military life but was viewed as without honor. The undesirable discharge replaced the true Blue Discharge.
10. The DD Form 303A (Certificate in Lieu of Lost or Destroyed Discharge) is authorized to be issued in those circumstances when there is no discharge form to be corrected.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. It appears from the available evidence that the applicant was discharged for inadaptability on 30 October 1943, after 4 months and 8 days service. The reason and authority for the discharge appear correct. There is no record of lost time by the applicant. Prior to 1947, there was no general discharge available for the separation of soldiers found to be inept or lacking adaptability to military service.
2. It would now be in the interest of fairness and equity to upgrade the applicant’s discharge to reflect a separation under honorable conditions (general).
3. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case for the individual concerned be corrected by issuing a DD Form 303A which shows that he was discharged on 30 October 1943 at Camp Croft, South Carolina under honorable conditions (general).
BOARD VOTE:
__jh___ __ho____ __ca____ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
____June Hajjar_____
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2001052321 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010405 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19431030 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 615-360, section VIII |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A78.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072219C070403
When the applicant informed Army officials that he could no longer perform his military duties he was separated with a less than honorable discharge with a poor characterization of service. The characterization of an “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions” discharge is a degradation of the “Blue Discharge” that he was issued at the time of discharge under regulations and policy that existed at that time. The applicant was required to appear before a board of officers to determine his...
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 | CY2013 | 20130001950
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The War Department Form 370 also shows he was discharged "not honorably" per paragraph 5b and Section VII (Desertion) of Army Regulation 615-360 (Enlisted Men - Discharge, Release from Active Duty), and he was to be issued a "blue" discharge certificate. He provides an NA Form 13038 issued on 17 January 2013 showing his service was terminated by "other than honorable discharge."
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059570C070421
He further states that he was discharged for AWOL but not for drugs. 24 October 1942 - 3 November 1942 AWOL 11 days. LOD NO EPTI.” He was also issued a WDAGO Form 56 (Discharge from the Army of the United States (blue)), a “Blue” discharge, a copy of which is not now in his file.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002760
The applicant, son of the deceased former service member (FSM), requests an upgrade of his father's other than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge. The applicant states: a. The available evidence suggests that the FSM received a blue discharge because his service did not meet the criteria for an honorable discharge.
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 | CY1996 | 9605850C070209
He requested reconsideration in 1987 and was denied based upon insufficient evidence of error or injustice and his failure to provide new evidence. 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. Medical authorities at Brooke General Hospital determined that the applicant had an inadequate personality and recommended his discharge under applicable...
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 | 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 | 2003086893C070212
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant’s military records were not available to the Board for review. The ADRB decisional document also indicated that the action of the board of officers and the separation authority in determining the type of discharge to be issued to the applicant was amply supported by the evidence, and that no additional evidence of sufficient weight and credibility to warrant an upgrade had been presented. The evidence also shows that the applicant’s request for an upgrade...