| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Stephanie Thompkins | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Linda D. Simmons | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, a change of the reason for his discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he did resist the discharge even if it was honorable and he did not deserve a Section VIII discharge. He also states he did not receive a Good Conduct Medal. He submits a detailed letter, three letters of support and a copy of his discharge certificate in support of his application and to show he was intelligent and a good citizen.
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 reconstructed personnel records. These records show:
Department of Army, the Office of The Surgeon General hospital admission cards show he was diagnosed in April 1944 with Psychosis, manic-depressive after completion of 1 month of service.
The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not available. War Department Form No. 366-b, indicates that the applicant was honorably discharged on 25 April 1944 per Section VIII, Army Regulation 615-360, for Lack of adaptability for military service.
There is no evidence to show he was awarded or was entitled to a Good Conduct Medal.
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 inaptness (lack of a required degree of adaptability) and for those who demonstrated undesirable habits and traits of character. Section VIII also specifies that under the basic War Department policy, 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. An honorable discharge was issued to those individuals who tried faithfully to serve, but could not.
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 view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to a change of the reason for his discharge, or to deletion of Section VIII from his discharge records. He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.
2. While the Board is empathetic, there is no evidence of record to substantiate the applicant's claim that he did not deserve this type of discharge. There is also no evidence to show entitlement to a Good Conduct Medal.
3. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The applicant has not shown otherwise.
4. The Board notes in this case that the applicant’s service of 1 month was honorable, and that he tried faithfully to serve but could not do so through no voluntary fault of his own.
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 this 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
_jns____ _lds_____ _jtm____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001065125 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020321 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 111.00 |
| 2. | 110.02 |
| 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 | 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...
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 | CY2001 | 2001052321C070420
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. 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. Historical records also show that Blue Discharges were issued to individuals whose service was not dishonorable, but were not...
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 | 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 | CY2003 | 2003091236C070212
The applicant's enlisted record, prepared at the time of his discharge from the Army of the United States, fails to show that he was awarded the Purple Heart. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by awarding the applicant the Purple Heart for wounds sustained in action near Mateur, Tunisia, on 23 October 1943;...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040001895C070208
The applicant’s military records are not available to the Board. This document further shows the disposition of the applicant was disability discharge under section II, Army Regulation 615-360. The evidence includes a WD AGO Form 53-55 that contains an entry in Item 34 that indicates the applicant was never wounded/injured as a result of combat action.
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 | CY2005 | 20050004507C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 November 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050004507 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests, in effect, an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD). There is no indication in the available records to show that he ever applied to...