MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:



         BOARD DATE: 31 JANUARY 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001062553

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson
Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Member
Ms. Regan K. Smith		Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

         The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

---

APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: The applicant states that he was discriminated against and mistreated because of his race. He states that his feet where in pain because of continuous drills, but his condition was ignored. His sergeant struck him in the face. He was informed that he was court-martialed on two occasions; however, he never saw a judge or provided any documents, but was put into custody for his supposed offenses. He was involved in an altercation in his barracks, and was returned to custody. He states that they did not like black soldiers. He spent over two years overseas and he was mistreated, disrespected, and discriminated against by his comrades. He was transferred to a military hospital in Oakland, and after a short stay was separated with an undesirable discharge. He was in custody for 193 days without any court-martial and discharged without any documents [administrative procedures conducted].

He has worked two jobs to make a good life for his family, working one job for over 35 years. He has been a good citizen, never late for his job, never malingering or drinking while working, or fighting. He has been married to the same woman for forty years and has four children who are artists. He is a church deacon. After his military service he worked for the VA hospital in Montrose, New York for 2 years, and retired from Howard Johnson’s after 25 years on the job. He states that at that time in history blacks and many minorities were treated very unfairly and discriminated against.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:

The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows that he enlisted in the Army for three years on 3 August 1951.

The applicant was seen on 13 August 1951 because of a sprained ankle. X-rays of his ankle were negative.

A medical record shows that the applicant was treated on 7 April 1952 because of a wound to his lower lip he received while fighting with another soldier.

The applicant was treated for athlete’s feet on 29 January 1953.

The applicant was assigned to the 564^th Military Police Battalion when he was treated on 4 August 1953 for a puncture wound below his lower lip caused by a blow to the face by another solider. He was treated on 15 August 1953 because of any eye injury he received in a fight.

On 6 October 1953 the applicant, then assigned to the stockade, slipped and hit his knee on a step. He received three stitches to his knee.

The applicant was treated for corns and bunions on 22 January 1954. On 12 April 1954 he was treated because of numbness to his left foot. On 16 May 1954 he was treated for hemorrhoids, and on 19 May 1954 treated for an acute perirectal abscess.

On 17 June 1954 a board of officers met to determine whether or not the applicant should be retained in the Army. The applicant appeared before the board and was represented by counsel. The board record shows that the applicant was afforded full opportunity to cross-examine adverse testimony, to present evidence in his own behalf, to make an unsworn statement, or to remain silent. The applicant elected to remain silent. The board found that the applicant had evidence of traits of character which rendered retention in the service as undesirable, recommended that he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 because of unfitness and that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 12 July 1954 the separation authority approved the recommendation.

On 1 August 1954, while aboard the USS President Jackson enroute to the United States, the applicant was seen because of anxiety reaction. His health record shows that the applicant demonstrated marked anxiety about being killed by some of the troops being transported back to the United States. It shows that the applicant claimed that he was involved in an altercation with a white soldier in a bar in Japan about three months ago, and that same white soldier and his companions were aboard and threatening his life. He claimed to hear hostile voices, but when asked to describe or point out the hostile soldiers, he was not able to do so. He was transferred to another compartment and a guard assigned to watch him; however, he later became agitated, was confined in the brig at his own request, and a guard assigned to watch him. Afterward he was transferred to the isolation ward. The applicant’s past history indicated that he had been court-martialed three times and punished on innumerable occasions. He was found to be of low intelligence with a lack of sense of responsibility. He was given an undesirable discharge because he could not adapt himself to Army life. A psychiatric evaluation in November 1953 indicated that the applicant was not psychotic or grossly mentally defective, but that he showed inadaptability, ineptness, poor judgment, social incompatibility, belligerency when under the influence of alcohol, and inability to accept or discharge responsibility. The shipboard examination indicated that the applicant was dull and his speech almost unintelligible. He was guarded 24 hours a day. The applicant was hostile and suspicious toward everyone. He was concerned, anxious, and depressed about his discharge, and felt that he had not received consideration and was treated unjustly because of his low rank. The examining physician stated that it was difficult to arrive at a definite conclusion because of the short time that the applicant had aboard ship. He stated that the applicant’s past history and present signs and symptoms were compatible with acute anxiety with paranoia.

The applicant was evaluated by a social service officer at Letterman Army Hospital in San Francisco. The August 1954 clinical record shows that he was transferred from the USS President Jackson on 11 August 1954 and admitted to Letterman for psychiatric observation. The applicant was interviewed, and was reluctant to give information that might put himself into a bad light. His intelligence was somewhat inadequate and he referred to the fact that he had been framed. The examination officer recounted the applicant’s civilian and military history, stated that the applicant completed training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, after which he went to Camp Drake in Japan. The officer indicated that the applicant stated that he missed bed check and reveille one day and received 14 days restriction, that he received a special court-martial in 1952 for AWOL, received a summary court-martial in 1953 for being drunk and disorderly, and while awaiting that court-martial, broke restriction and received four months of hard labor. He was released from the stockade on 27 December 1953. The applicant stated that someone stole his trousers and they were found outside the camp, but that he was court-martialed for selling his trousers and received three months of hard labor. He stated this his difficulties arose because of his race. He stated that he had venereal disease on several occasions while overseas.

The applicant was evaluated by a psychiatrist at Letterman in August. The examining physician reviewed his present and past history, noted that the applicant had been in almost continuous administrative difficulties during his tour in Japan, contracting venereal disease on several occasions, and tried on three occasions by courts-martial because of AWOL type offenses. He recounted the applicant’s shipboard actions and behavior. He stated that the applicant had been continuously dissatisfied with his assignment in Japan because he had no regular job, but was only sent on detail daily. He stated that the applicant felt that he and other black soldiers were being discriminated against, and his defense counsel felt likewise. Psychiatric examination revealed no evidence at the time of the administrative board of any psychiatric disease. The examining physician recounted the applicant’s past history, both civilian and military, stated that the applicant was angry and concerned about the future, and that his intelligence appeared dull normal – essentially a negative mental status examination. Psychological examinations showed some indications of the use of projective mechanisms, but no evidence of autistic thinking or other findings consistent with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. The doctor stated that the applicant was demanding and critical throughout his hospitalization, and refused to accept the possibility that there was any justice in the handling of his case. He was uncooperative with his treatments for his rectal difficulties, complaining that he was not receiving proper treatment. The doctor stated that the administrative basis for his discharge was adequate, and that there was no basis for recommending a medical disposition of his case. His condition was diagnosed as aggressive reaction, chronic, severe, manifested by aggressive acts under the influence of alcohol, unwillingness to conform to the demands of authority, repeated offenses leading to court-martial, repeated contraction of venereal disease, complaining and critical attitudes, and one short period of suspiciousness resembling paranoia. The doctor recommended that the applicant be returned to duty for administrative discharge.

A 25 August 1954 report of medical examination shows that the applicant was medically qualified for discharge with a physical profile serial of 1 1 1 1 1 1.

The applicant was discharged from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 on 26 August 1954 with an undesirable discharge.

Army Regulation 615-368, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness. Unfitness included, in addition to misconduct and repeated petty offenses, habits and traits of character manifested by antisocial or amoral trends, chronic alcoholism, criminalism, drug
addiction, pathological lying, homosexuality, sexual perversion, habitual shirking, and repeated venereal infections. Action to separate an individual was to be
taken when, in the judgment of the commander, rehabilitation was unsuccessful, impractical or was unlikely to produce a satisfactory soldier. When separation for unfitness was warranted an 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. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2. There is no evidence, nor has the applicant provided any, to indicate that he was discriminated against or mistreated because of his race, nor any evidence that his undesirable discharge was unfair or unjust and as such there is no basis upgrade his discharge.

3. While the Board has taken cognizance of his good post-service conduct, this factor does not warrant the relief requested.

4. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.

5. 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 that requirement.

6. 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

__RVO__ __EJA___ __RKS __ DENY APPLICATION

                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001062553
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20020131
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	142.00
2.	110.00
3.	3600
4.
5.
6.