| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to fully honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That after faithfully serving his country, he was given an undesirable discharge based solely on his race.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records could not be located and are presumed to have been destroyed in the fire at the records repository at St. Louis, Missouri, in 1973. The following information was derived from the applicant’s discharge packet and his separation document.
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 July 1950. He was assigned to a truck company in Europe.
On 18 October 1950, the applicant was found guilty by a Summary Court-Martial of being in Mexico without a proper pass.
On 28 May 1952, the applicant was found guilty by a Special Court-Martial of leaving his guard post before he was relieved.
On 27 January 1953, the applicant was given a psychiatric evaluation. In that evaluation, the admission diagnosis of anxiety reaction was replaced by
passive-aggressive reaction, manifested by excessive dependency, immaturity, occasional impulsive outbursts of anger, asocial tendencies with difficulty in relating to people, and marked inadequacy feelings. The applicant was determined fit for duty.
On 5 March 1953, the applicant was found guilty by a Special Court-Martial of striking a fellow soldier in the face with his fist.
Between 30 September 1951 and 2 March 1953, the applicant departed absent without leave (AWOL) on six occasions, and was confined twice, once for 176 days and once for 154 days.
On 27 November 1953, a board of officers was convened to determine whether the applicant should be separated prior to the expiration of his term of service, as reestablished due to his lost time. The board of officers determined that the applicant gave evidence of habits which rendered his retention in the service undesirable. The board of officers recommended that the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
On 25 January 1954, the applicant was given a physical and mental examination. The applicant was determined to be physically fit with no psychiatric considerations, that he was mentally responsible, and that he could distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.
On 4 February 1954, the recommendation of the board of officers was approved.
On 5 March 1954, the applicant was given an undesirable discharge for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368. He had 2 years, 8 months and 4 days of creditable service, and 339 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 615-368, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness. Unfitness included misconduct, 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 and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The applicant’s contention that he served faithfully is not supported by his military records. He was found guilty by three courts-martial, the first of which rendered its verdict within three months of his enlistment. He also went AWOL throughout his military service.
2. While the applicant charges that the sole basis for his discharge was his race, he has not submitted any evidence to substantiate that charge and there is no documentation in his record which would indicate there may be any substance to that claim.
3. The applicant was discharged because he repeatedly committed acts of misconduct and did not change his behavior when he was given progressively harsher punishment.
4. 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
___jhl ___ ____rvs _ ___jtm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003085245 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030717 |
| 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. | 105.01 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062553C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The applicant was discharged from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 on 26 August 1954 with an undesirable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004103833C070208
The applicant requests that the undesirable discharge of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM) be upgraded to honorable. The attending psychiatrist opined that the FSM was showing a chronic form of psychosis and as such he was not responsible for his conduct. The available records fail to show that this Board ever received or considered the FSM’s application for correction of military records dated 19 September 2002.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020467
Based on the results of the psychiatric evaluation and his continued failure to adapt to military duty, on 11 February 1956, the applicant's immediate commander requested a board of officers be convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Men - Discharge - Unfitness (Undesirable Habits and Traits of Character)) to determine the applicant's fitness for retention. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008071
On 15 July 1954, his immediate commander requested a board of officers be convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Men - Discharge - Unfitness (Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character)) for the purpose of determining the applicant's fitness for retention. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 with an undesirable discharge. The regulation stated that discharge, if recommended, would be for unfitness,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001307
On 28 June 1953, the FSM's unit recommended a board of officers be convened to determine whether the FSM should be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Personnel - Discharge - Unfitness). The certificate, dated 12 June 1953, issued by the Psychiatry and Neurology Service, USAH, Camp Atterbury, essentially stated: * the FSM's diagnosis was anti-social personality manifested by immaturity, impulsive behavior, lack of adequate standards of behavior, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015434
The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 with an undesirable discharge. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015955
He provides: * Self-authored statement * Report of Proceedings by a Board of Officers with an extract of time lost, statement and certificate by commanding officer, and outpatient index * Special Orders Number 190, dated 16 August 1954 * Special Orders Number 197, dated 24 August 1954 * Special Orders Number 184, dated 9 August 1954 * VA Form 686c (Declaration of Marital Status), dated 1 November 1954 * WD AGO Form 53 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation Honorable Discharge) * Two DD...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019683
The FSM's complete military records are not available to the Board for review. On 12 February 2013, the ABCMR considered his petition for a discharge upgrade but found no evidence of error or injustice and denied his request. The regulation stated that discharge, if recommended, would be for unfitness, except that discharge because of unsuitability (under Army Regulation 615-369 (Enlisted Personnel - Discharge - Inaptitude or Unsuitability)), without referral to another board, might be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015347
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 March 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110015347 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's military records are not available to the Board for review. However, the records show he was 17 years of age at the time of his enlistment and 19 years old at the time of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011763
The board found that the applicant gives evidence of habits and gives evidence of traits of character which rendered retention in the service undesirable and recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service because of unfitness and that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. Evidence of record shows the applicant completed 3 years, 3 months, and 9 days of creditable active service when he was discharged. Although the applicants daughter contends that they have no...