| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Lana E. McGlynn | Member | |
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his other than honorable discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his discharge was too harsh because he could not read or write at the time.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant’s military records were not available to the Board for review. A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members’ records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973. It is believed his records were lost in that fire. However, there were sufficient documents in the reconstructed record to allow the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of the case.
A Certificate of Military Service (GSA Form 6954), issued by the National Personnel Records Center, St. Louis, Missouri, on 26 March 1981, confirms that the applicant was a member of the Army of the United States from 17 December 1943 through 1 September 1944. It also verifies that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions, and that he held the rank of private (PVT) at the time.
The available record includes a copy of an Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) decisional document that summarized a hearing conducted on the applicant’s case on 13 September 1948. This document shows that the ADRB considered the applicant’s case, to include the testimony of counsel, and found that the action taken by the board of officers that recommended his separation was conducted in accordance with the applicable law and regulation in effect at the time.
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. Finally, the ADRB concluded that the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge should be denied.
On 25 June 1974, the ADRB considered a second request from the applicant
for an upgrade to his discharge. The ADRB’s decisional document
(OSA Form 172A) for this review confirms that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Section VIII, Army Regulation 615-360, by reason of traits of character which rendered his retention in the service undesirable. No acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition are recorded in this document. It also shows that he was convicted of being absent without leave (AWOL) by a special court-martial, and that he had been in military confinement. The ADRB found the applicant’s discharge to be proper and equitable, and it voted to deny his upgrade request a second time.
Army Regulation 615-360, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and procedures for separation of enlisted personnel. Section VIII provided for separation for inaptness (lack of a required degree of adaptability) and for members who demonstrated undesirable habits and traits of character. Section VIII also specified 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. A Blue Discharge Certificate that contained the authority for discharge was issued to identify this other than honorable discharge. The certificate contained neither a reason for the discharge or characterization of service.
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 Board notes the applicant’s claim that his discharge should be upgraded because he could not read or write at the time. However, it finds no evidence to support this claim, and even if true, this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The evidence confirms that the applicant’s discharge processing was conducted in accordance with the applicable regulation in effect at the time. Lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
3. The evidence also shows that the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge was considered and denied by the ADRB in 1948 and again in 1974. The Board finds the applicant has failed to provide any new evidence with this application that would support a different result from this Board.
4. 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.
5 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
_JS____ __WDP___ __LEM__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003086893 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/06/19 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1944/09/01 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 615-360 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Habits and Traits |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002085638C070215
The regulation states that an individual separated under this regulation will be furnished an honorable or general discharge. The Board considered the applicant's request to change his discharge to Army Regulation 615-365 or Army Regulation 615-360. The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that the reason and authority for separation issued to him was in error or unjust.
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 | 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 | 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 | CY1996 | 9610714C070209
PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. The board recommend that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-360 on account of habits and traits of character which rendered his retention in the service undesirable, and disqualified in character for service, through his own misconduct. 56 (Discharge from the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088150C070403
This version of the regulation that came into effect 1 July 1947, the month after the applicant’s discharge, did authorize the issue of either a GD or UD for separation for unfitness (undesirable habits or traits of character). The Board notes the applicant’s contention that in order to be fair, the Board must grant him an honorable discharge based on the facts of his case being similar to case which resulted in the Board recommending an upgrade of a UD to a GD. However, the Board further...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065125C070421
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. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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 | 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02728
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02728 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the...
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...