RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          02 SEPTEMBER 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004099982


      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.

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

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Walter Morrison               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. William Powers                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Ronald Weaver                 |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  In effect, the applicant requests that his records be corrected to show
that he was discharged because of a physical disability.

2.  The applicant states that he was a schizophrenic, but [at the time of
his discharge] was unaware of his condition, only finding out the truth
about himself in the year 2000.  His behavior in the Army was not criminal,
but caused by his schizophrenia.  In a number of letters he submits prior
to his application, he states that he had a mental breakdown but his
condition was not fully understood by the doctors.  He receives social
security and Medicaid and has adequate means to live.  He is not seeking
medical treatment from the Army or the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA),
but only wants to clear his name.  If the events occurred today, he would
have been diagnosed using more advanced medical knowledge, treated, and
returned to duty.

      a.  When he found out the nature of his discomfort and distress, that
it was coming from inside his mind, he also found that he had learned ways
to cope.  He is in better mental condition than he ever was.

      b.  When he found out that he was schizophrenic he decided to seek a
correction to his dishonorable discharge to a medical discharge, because
the court-martial decision was based on the assumption that he was not
schizophrenic.  He was very sick in those days and it was no fault of
anyone except his own internal condition, for he was well treated by all
the officers and men whom he met while in the Army.  He was labeled a
psychopath by the doctors who treated him.  He believed them.  He spent the
rest of his life under a cloud of shame.  A lieutenant colonel prepared a
report for the review board stating that he was schizophrenic, but told him
that he was emotionally ill.  If he had been told the truth, he would have
been better equipped to handle his condition.  He learned to deal with some
of the hallucinations by making counter-hallucinations and found some peace
of mind.  His family helped him.  It was not until recently he found out
that he was schizophrenic and not a psychopath.  Then he was able to
understand his condition and deal with it intelligently and effectively.
He will never again crack up under stress.

      c.  The doctors who testified against him could not have known what we
know today about schizophrenia.  In the final analysis it was his own
fault, but it was a sickness, which should have been treated medically.

3.  The applicant provides documents which are depicted herein.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 16 August 1955.  The application submitted in this case
is dated      5 November 2003.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant's complete military records are unavailable.  Available
are copies of morning report entries, medical records, and the record of
his trial by general court-martial and related documents.

4.  The applicant was assigned from Fort Monmouth, New Jersey to the
 11th Replacement Company at Fort Campbell, Kentucky on 17 September 1954,
and on 1 October 1954 further assigned to Service Company, 503d Airborne
Infantry Regiment, and on 12 October 1954 to Headquarters Company, 1st
Battalion of that regiment.  Morning report entries show that he was sick
in the hospital on 4 October 1954.

5.  A medical record shows that he was admitted to the Army hospital at
Fort Campbell on 4 October 1954 and released to duty on 26 October 1954
with a diagnosis that he was a malingerer.

6.  On 5 November 1954 charges were preferred against the applicant for
violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 115, for
feigning mental derangement for the purpose of avoiding services as an
enlisted man  from about 4 October 1954  to about 9 October 1954.

7.  An investigating officer was appointed under the provisions of Article
32, UCMJ.  Included with that report:

      a.  A document showing the applicant's prior history, which revealed
that he entered on active duty in September 1953, completed basic training
at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland, and advanced training at Fort
Jackson, South Carolina.  He was assigned to Fort Monmouth, New Jersey in
May 1954 prior to his assignment to Fort Campbell in September of that
year.  The applicant's commanding officer stated that he was entirely
undependable and that his appearance and dress were continually in a very
poor state.  He stated that the applicant disliked Army life and in no way
did he hide his feelings.

      b.  A 25 September 1954 medical document indicating that the
applicant had trouble with spiritualism – that he had developed intense
abdomen pains and was getting infuriated on demons.

      c.  A 1 November 1954 medical document indicating that the applicant
had headaches, that he was extremely arrogant, and that he [the doctor]
talked with a captain who explained that the applicant was a malingerer
under investigation for a general court-martial.  The doctor indicated that
he could not do much with the applicant, that he was sloppy with an
arrogant aggressive personality and who thought everyone was lying to him.

      d.  The file contains a 9 October 1954 report of an interview with
the applicant by two doctors and a medical service corps officer of the
office of psychiatry and neurology at the Fort Campbell hospital.  The
interview revealed that they were informed by a corpsman that the applicant
had confided in him and was concerned over the prospect of electroshock
treatment.  He then told the corpsman there was nothing wrong with his
mind, and that he only wanted to get out of the service.  He stated that he
feigned epilepsy at Fort Monmouth and was currently feigning a psychiatric
disease.  He stated if that failed, he would tell authorities that he was a
homosexual.  With that in mind, they interviewed him.    He admitted that
he had been feigning schizophrenia in an effort to get out of the Army.  He
stated that he was no longer troubled by the "spirit dog" and that whereas
he had studied spiritualism five years ago and had a spirit dog attached to
him, he had successfully ridded himself of this beast by taking garlic
three years ago.  He stated that he feigned epilepsy at Fort Monmouth.  In
discussing seizures with him, he stated that in reading textbooks he noted
a discrepancy in the description of fits given by various authorities and
concluded that many details were unknown.  He then performed for them a
typical seizure.  Having failed to get out of the Army as an epileptic, the
applicant again consulted reference books and read about schizophrenia.
When asked, he provided the three officials the features of schizophrenia,
to include telling half-truths to confuse the examiner.  He stated that he
decided to give up the game because he was afraid that by being
spiritualistically inclined he might go crazy unlike a normal person.
Furthermore, he stated that he was afraid electroshock therapy might injure
some nerve cells.  The three medical personnel stated that on the basis of
the evidence, the diagnosis of malingering was inescapable.



      d.  An 11 October 1954 statement by the above mentioned corpsman who
corroborated the above information, and also stated that the applicant
informed him that he believed in the spirit world, that he was more
advanced than the rest of society, that he was a genius, due to the shape
of his head and his intelligence quotient of 137 when he was 14 years old.
He stated that the applicant informed him that a spirit dog had lived in
his stomach for a few years but he got rid of it by eating garlic.  The
applicant informed him that he had special power over cards, dice, and
similar games of chance, and knew the future course of events.

8.  On 22 November 1954 the investigating officer recommended trial by
general court-martial.  On 27 November 1954 the 11th Airborne Division
Staff Judge Advocate informed the commanding general that he had examined
the charges and report of investigation, and that the allegations were
warranted by the evidence in the report of the investigating officer, that
there was no indication that the applicant was insane or otherwise not
responsible for his acts.  He recommended trial by general court-martial.
On 30 November 1954 the convening authority referred the charge for trial
by general court-martial.

9.  On 9 December 1954 the applicant was arraigned and tried by a general
court-martial which convened at Fort Campbell for violation of the UCMJ,
Article 115, in that he did from about 4 October 1954 to about 9 October
1954 for the purpose of avoiding service as an enlisted man feign mental
derangement.
The applicant pled guilty to the specification and charge, and his plea of
guilty was accepted.  The prosecution called a witness, one of the doctors
who evaluated the applicant between 4 October and 9 October 1954, who
testified that he and other medical personnel originally diagnosed the
applicant as suffering from a schizophrenic reaction, a mentally ill
condition; however, he stated that he changed his diagnosis on 9 October
1954 after interviewing the applicant, concluding that he knew right from
wrong and that he had possession of his mental faculties – that he had no
mental illness.  After his testimony, the prosecution rested.  The
applicant elected to remain silent, and the defense rested.  The court
found him guilty of the specification and the charge.

10.  The applicant then testified in his own behalf regarding the
presentation of evidence in extenuation or mitigation of the offense.  He
admitted to trying to fool the doctors by feigning mental derangement.  He
commented on his chronic headaches at Fort Jackson and Fort Monmouth,
stating that he received no help, and upon assignment to Fort Campbell,
decided to try to get out of the Army.  He stated that he told a doctor
that he was having hallucinations and that a dog was eating off his
stomach, a spiritual dog.  He stated that he was a spiritualist and that
while in high school he contacted a spirit dog, describing how he did so,
and stating that he never mentioned it because people would think that he
was crazy. When questioned by the court law officer, he provided more
information about the spirit dog, to include how he got rid of him.  The
court recessed after his testimony, and after reconvening, the law officer
withdrew the plea of guilty, stating that it would not be accepted by the
court.  He advised the court to return and withdraw its findings of guilty.
 The court closed, reconvened, and notified the law officer that it
withdrew its finding of guilty.  The law officer adjourned the proceedings
with instructions to the trial counsel that the proceeding would be
reported to the convening authority with the recommendation that the
applicant be psychoanalyzed by psychiatrists and that they be made
available as witnesses to testify as to the applicant's present mental
capacity.

11.  On 10 December 1954 a neuropsychiatrist certified that the applicant
possessed sufficient mental capacity to cooperate intelligently at his
defense, and that the naiveness of his productions coupled with the lack of
those emotional factors seen in psychotics would indicate that he was not
mentally ill, that he knew right from wrong, and was mentally responsible
for his acts.

12.  On 11 December 1954 the court reconvened and heard testimony from the
above mentioned neuropsychiatrist, who opined that the applicant had the
mental capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings against him,
that he had sufficient mental capacity, intelligently, to cooperate and
conduct his defense, and that there was no evidence of any mental
derangement.  Subsequent to his testimony the law officer ruled that the
applicant possessed sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature of
the proceedings against him and to intelligently conduct or cooperate in
his defense.  The law officer advised the court that the applicant's plea
of guilty had been stricken and a plea of not guilty entered on the record
to the specification and the charge, and that the trial would proceed as
though the applicant had pleaded not guilty.

13.  The court then heard testimony from the above-mentioned medical
corpsman and a clinical psychologist, the latter who testified that when he
saw the applicant on 4 October 1954, the applicant was delusional and his
affects were flattened – that is he spoke in a monotone, did not show much
interest, blocked a great deal, behaved as if he were in a dream world or
state, and related information that was quite confused as to time and
happening, confusing events and running them together.  He stated that a
diagnosis [schizophrenic reaction] was made by three doctors at that time,
but that he did not concur with the diagnosis – that he felt that the
applicant was malingering and that he had a psychopathic personality, a
condition that was not a mental disease.  He stated that he based his
opinion on his interpretation of a battery of psychological tests given to
the applicant, and that his opinion was confirmed upon the interview with
the applicant on 9 October 1954.  Subsequent tests bolstered his belief
that the applicant was malingering.  When questioned by the court, he
opined that the applicant had been lying about his mental derangement.
When questioned by the defense, he stated that the applicant had been lying
in the first interview, but not in the second [on 9 October 1954], but that
he had no way of knowing whether the specific things that he related were
truthful or not.

14.  The prosecution recalled one of the doctors who had evaluated the
applicant between 4 October and 9 October 1954.  That doctor testified that
the applicant was malingering and that he could distinguish right from
wrong.  After his testimony, the prosecution rested.  The applicant elected
to remain silent, and the defense rested.

15.  The law officer then provided instructions to the court.  The court
closed and upon reconvening informed the applicant that the court found him
guilty of the specification and the charge.  The applicant then elected to
continue his testimony in extenuation and mitigation, averring that he did
try to fool the doctors, that that he was wrong and sorry for what he did.
He stated that he would like to have the chance to try over again, and
would put the same amount of effort even more to soldiering as he did
trying to get out.  He stated that he did have a headache, but was willing
to try all over again, and that he felt that he would make a good Soldier.

16.  The applicant was sentenced to be dishonorably discharged, to forfeit
all pay and allowances, and to be confined at hard labor for one year.

17.  The 11th Airborne Division Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the record of
trial and stated that the court was justified in their findings of guilty,
that the action of the law officer in striking the plea of guilty and
entering a plea of not guilty for the applicant was correct, and that the
sentence was legally correct.  Because the applicant had no record of any
previous convictions, the Staff Judge Advocate recommended that the
applicant's sentence to confinement be reduced to six months.

18.  On 3 January 1955 the convening authority approved only so much of the
sentence which provided for a dishonorable discharge, confinement at hard
labor for six months, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances, stating
that the execution of the portion adjudging dishonorable discharge was
suspended until the applicant's release from confinement or until
completion of appellate review, whichever was later.

19.  On 28 February 1955 the Chief, Appellate Division, The Judge Advocate
General's Office, requested The Surgeon General's opinion concerning the
applicant's mental condition, with respect to the issues raised in the
record of trial.  The Surgeon General recommended that the applicant,
presently confined at Fort Campbell, be hospitalized at Camp Gordon, and
that a board of medical officers be convened to evaluate the applicant.

20.  On 21 March 1955 the Commanding General, Third Army was requested to
convene a board of officers to render conclusions and opinions on the
mental condition of the applicant, and to submit the findings to The Judge
Advocate General's office.  On 30 March 1954 a board of medical officers
was appointed for that purpose.

21.  A report of medical board proceedings, dated 10 May 1955, indicates
that the board of three psychiatrists felt that the applicant, as a result
of his feelings of panic due to the stress of duty, had attempted to
exaggerate his symptoms in order to obtain a medical discharge.  They felt
that the applicant was able to differentiate right and wrong in reference
to the particular act, but that the schizophrenic process that was present
was of such a degree as to impair his judgment and awareness of reality to
the extent that his ability to adhere to the right concerning the
particular act was seriously impaired.  They diagnosed his condition as
schizophrenic reaction, chronic, severe, manifested by flattened affect,
impaired judgment, autistic thinking, and paranoid ideation.  He was able
to distinguish right from wrong; however, he was not so far free from
mental defect, disease or derangement at the time of the alleged offense as
to be able to adhere to the right.  At the time of the trial, he possessed
sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings
against him and intelligently to conduct or cooperate in his defense.  In
view of their finding that he was unable to adhere to the right, the board
recommended that the court-martial proceedings be dismissed, and that he be
transferred to the Medical Holding Detachment at Camp Gordon for
disposition through medical channels.  The report was approved by the
hospital commander on 12 May 1955.

22.  On 11 May 1955 the applicant was released from confinement and
restored to duty pending completion of appellate review.

23.  Based upon the findings of the medical board, the appellate defense
counsel requested that the board of review find that the applicant at the
time of the offense did not possess the requisite mental capacity to be
able concerning the particular acts charged to adhere to the right; find
that the approved findings of guilty and the sentence were not correct in
law and fact and set aside the same, and order that the charges be
dismissed.

24.  On 8 June 1955 The Chief, Military Justice Division of The Judge
Advocate General's office requested that The Surgeon General review the
record of trial and the medical board report.  In response thereto, The
Surgeon General stated that the ability of the applicant to exhibit a
flattened affect in one situation and a normal affect in another situation,
apparently whenever he desired to do so, was considered to be inconsistent
with the diagnosis of schizophrenia, that the diagnosis of a medical board,
and the finding that the subject was not so far free from mental defect,
disease, or derangement as to be able to adhere to the right were not
considered to be appropriate; and that there was insufficient evidence to
justify a finding of mental illness.  The Surgeon General opined that the
applicant was at the time of the alleged offense, so far free from mental
defect, diseases, or derangement as to be able, concerning the particular
acts charged, to distinguish right from wrong, to adhere to the right, and
to possess sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature of the
proceedings against him and intelligently to conduct or cooperate in his
defense.

25.  The Appellate Government Counsel, Office of The Judge Advocate
General, then requested that the board of review affirm the findings and
recommendation.

26.  On 25 July 1955 the board of review affirmed the findings of guilty
and the sentence.  On 9 August 1955 the applicant requested that
appropriate action be taken to finalize the sentence as affirmed by the
board of review without further delay. On 16 August 1955 the sentence was
ordered to be duly executed.  He was dishonorably discharged from the Army
on that date.

27.  With his request, the applicant provides a copy of a 28 August 2000
response from the Office of The Judge Advocate General to his 16 August
2000 letter.  Attached is the applicant's self-authored biography, in which
he stated the because he was found guilty by the court and because the
review upheld their decisions, then he was stuck on the idea in his mind
that they were right, that he was not mentally ill, and that he had been
malingering; however, he stated that a few months ago he was in the public
library, which led to his research and his conclusion that he wasn't evil
and bad and that he wasn't a criminal, and that maybe they made a mistake
because they did not know then about brain chemicals as they do now – that
malingering was not a crime, but a symptom of his illness.

      a.  He continued by talking about his life, from childhood to the
present, ideas and reality, social relationships, food and mood, the
bipolar question, helpful solutions, and comments on the trial papers in
which he stated that a person could look at all the testimony – pick out
just those parts which support the opinion that he was a psychopath and
should be punished and removed, pick out those parts which support the idea
that he was a schizophrenic, and if either method is chosen any contrary
testimony or information had to be ignored.  He stated that a third method
was to look at the testimony as a whole and to gain a feeling, an overview
which would give regard to it all as a single interconnected entity which
was not just a sum of disconnected parts, but interactive elements in
turmoil [BLANK] in harmony as the case might be.


      c.  He stated that while in the Army he was very ill and needed
psychiatric help badly, but unfortunately his illness was so bizarre that
the doctors and the officers could not be blamed for their reaction.  At
the trial the doctors said that he was not mentally ill; however, the
medical board found him mentally ill and unable to adhere to the right.
The officers of the review board went against the doctors and said he was
guilty.  He stated that from what he has read, remembered from his trial,
and deduced from incidents around the time of his trial, he was very ill
and not responsible for his actions.  The doctors at Camp Gordon seemed
willing to help him, recommending disposition through medical channels.
Instead he was left on his own by the verdict of an officer who used the
first method of assuming that he was a psychopath.  He stated that he
blamed no one because they were all doing the best that they could.  He
asked for nothing but a reevaluation of his dishonorable discharge.

28.  The maximum punishment authorized by the Manual for Courts-Martial for
violation of Article 115, feigning illness, physical disablement, mental
lapse, or derangement, is a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay
and allowances, and confinement at hard labor for one year.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Trial by court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses
charged.  Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with
applicable law and regulations, and the discharge appropriately
characterizes the misconduct for which the applicant was convicted.

2.  The applicant pled guilty to malingering, caused the law officer to
reject his plea based on the his testimony in matters of extenuation and
mitigation, a plea of not guilty was entered on his behalf by the law
officer, and after again being evaluated and after hearing further
testimony from medical officers, was found guilty by the court.  The
applicant himself, in continuing his testimony, admitted that he had tried
to fool the doctors, that he was wrong and sorry for what he did, but that
he would like to remain in the Army and believed that the could be a good
Soldier.  It would be difficult, if not impossible, to now determine,
notwithstanding the recent documents that he submits with his application,
at which point in time the applicant was being truthful or whether or not
he was lying.  The doctors who examined and evaluated him and the court
members who heard his testimony some 50 years ago had the advantage of
seeing, hearing, and evaluating him.

4.  The applicant's commanding officer stated that the applicant disliked
Army life and in no way did he hide his feelings.  A doctor who evaluated
him stated that the applicant was extremely arrogant, that he had an
aggressive personality and thought everyone was lying to him.  It would
appear from that evidence, that the applicant did not at that time have a
flattened affect (one of the characteristics of schizophrenia), suggesting
that he was able to portray this affect when it was to his advantage.

5.  Subsequent to the court-martial, the applicant was again evaluated – by
a medical board and by the Chief of Psychiatry and Neurology consultant in
the Office of The Surgeon General, each of which came to different
conclusions, one that he was schizophrenic; and the other, that he was free
from mental defect, able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the
right, and to understand and participate in his own defense.  The board of
review obviously believed the views put forth by The Office of the Surgeon
General, affirming the finding and sentence of the court.  Because his
contentions relate to evidentiary matters which were finally and
conclusively adjudicated in the court-martial appellate process, there is
no basis for recharacterization of the discharge.

6.  The applicant has provided no good argument or probative evidence to
show that he was schizophrenic, deranged, or mentally unfit at the time of
his discharge.  Therefore, his request to correct his record to show that
he was discharged because of a physical disability is denied.

7.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 16 August 1955; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on         15 August 1958.  However, the applicant did
not file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a
compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest
of justice to excuse failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___WM__  ___WP__  ___RW__  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate
the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board
determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis
for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




            ____Walter Morrison_______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004099982                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040902                                |
|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.       |108.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]