RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        12 July 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040007323


      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. David S. Griffin              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John Slone                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Shirley L. Powell             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Stanley Kelley                |     |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.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his "Blue" discharge be changed
to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was accused of something he
didn't do and it was never proved that he did it.

3.  The applicant provides a:

      a.  copy of his discharge certificate, dated 15 February 1946;

      b.  copy of his WD AGO Form 53-56 (Enlisted Record and Report of
Separation Discharge from the Army of the United States) with a separation
date of 15 February 1946; and

      c.  a letter from his son, who states that his father is 77 years
old, has been a good father, and has never been in any trouble of any kind.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 15 February 1946, the date of his discharge.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 7 September 2004.

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 limitations 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 military personnel records were lost or destroyed in a
fire at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973.  The records
available to the Army Board For Correction of Military Records were
provided in part by the applicant and from reconstructed records.  There
were sufficient documents remaining in a reconstructed record for the Board
to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.

4.  The available records show the applicant was inducted on 7 August 1945
and entered into active service on that date.
5.  On 14 December 1945, the applicant was interviewed by an assistant
personnel psychiatrist at the Infantry Replacement Training Center at Camp
Roberts, California.  The interviewer stated the applicant has not been
able to satisfactorily absorb the basic military training and that his
memory and coordination were poor.

6.  The interviewer opined that the applicant did not possess sufficient
intelligence to make a competent Soldier and recommended that he be
separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-369
(Enlisted Men, Discharge, Inaptness, Lack of Required Degree of
Adaptability or Enuresis).

7.  On 22 December 1945, the applicant's commander requested that a Board
of Officers be convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-369 to
determine whether or not the applicant should be discharged prior to
expiration of his normal term of service because of inaptness.

8.  The details of the hearing before the Board were damaged by the fire.
However, enough of the documents were readable to determine that the
applicant appeared before the Board and that the applicant was reminded
that he could make a statement, sworn or unsworn or remain silent.  The
applicant elected to remain silent.

9.  On 2 January 1946, the Board of Officers recommended that the applicant
be discharged from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-
369 on account of inaptness.

10.  On 10 January 1946, the applicant was under investigation by the
Office of the Provost Marshal for theft of a money from another private's
footlocker.  The applicant made a sworn statement in which he admitted the
theft of money from the private's footlocker and theft of money and other
articles from the footlockers of other members of the platoon.

11.  On 11 January 1946, the applicant made a sworn statement before a
summary court officer in which he admitted stealing money and other
articles from his fellow Soldiers on at least six occasions between 14
August 1945 and 29 December 1945.

12.  On 25 January 1946, the convening authority approved the findings of
the Board of Officers but disapproved the recommendation of the Board.  The
convening authority found that the applicant's conduct during his current
period of service had been such that it would render his retention in the
service undesirable regardless of his inaptness.

13.  The convening authority ordered that the applicant be discharged from
the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Undesirable
Habits or Traits of Character, Enlisted Men, Discharge) on account of
character which render his retention in the service as undesirable and that
he be issued a
WD AGO Form No. 56, Discharge from the Army of the United States (Blue) be
given to him.  The convening authority further ordered that the discharge
certificate bear the entry "AR (Army Regulation) 615-368, not eligible for
reenlistment, induction, or reinduction.

14.  The appropriate authority approved the applicant's discharge.

15.  On 15 February 1946, the applicant was discharged under the provisions
of Army Regulation 615-638, not eligible for reenlistment, induction or
reinduction.  He had completed 6 months and 9 days of active service.

16.  The applicant applied to the Secretary of War's Discharge Review Board
(DRB) to upgrade his discharge.  On 30 December 1946, the DRB reviewed and
denied the applicant's request for upgrade.  The DRB determined that the
applicant's discharge was proper and equitable.

17.  The "Blue" discharge was issued to individuals whose service was not
dishonorable but who were not entitled to a "testimonial of honest and
faithful service" as indicated by an honorable discharge.  It's use was
first adapted to the discharge of inapt enlisted personnel or those who had
habits or traits of character rendering their retention in the service
undesirable.  The "Blue" discharge did not include a characterization of
service.

18.  Army Regulation 615-369, in effect at the time, provided for the
discharge of personnel found to be inapt, did not possess the required
degree of adaptability for the military service, or were disqualified for
service because of enuresis.  This regulation provides, in pertinent part,
that when a Board of Officers has recommended that an enlisted man be
discharged and the conduct of that enlisted man during his current period
of service has been such as would render his retention in the service
undesirable regardless of his inaptness, lack of required adaptability for
military service, or enuresis, he will be discharged under the provisions
of Army Regulation 615-368.

19.  Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time, provided for the
discharge of personnel found to have habits or traits of character (except
when discharge for physical or mental conditions is indicated) which serve
to render their retention in the service undesirable or is disqualified for
service, physically or in character,
through his own misconduct.  This regulation provided, in pertinent part,
that all persons discharged under the provisions of this regulation would
be furnished a
WD AGO Form No. 56 (Discharge from the Army of the United States (Blue)).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his "Blue" discharge should be changed to
an honorable discharge because he was accused of something he didn't do and
it was never proven that he did it.

2.  The applicant admitted in a sworn statement to stealing from his fellow
Soldiers on numerous occasions.  Therefore, his contention is not supported
by the evidence.

3.  Evidence shows that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged
in accordance with regulations in effect at the time.  The type of
discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate
considering all the facts of the case.  The records contain no indication
of procedural or other errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

4.  Good post service conduct alone is not normally sufficient for
upgrading a properly issued discharge and the ABCMR does not upgrade
discharges based solely on the passage of time.

5.  The Board noted that the "Blue" discharge provides no characterization
of service and was used because the applicant's service did not show a
testimonial of honest and faithful service required for an honorable
discharge.

6.  The applicant's admitted incidents of theft do not meet the standards
of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.

7.  In view of all of the foregoing, there is insufficient basis to change
the applicant's "Blue" discharge to an honorable discharge.

8.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the error or
injustice now under consideration on 15 February 1946, the date of his
separation from active duty.  However, the ABCMR was not established until
2 January 1947.  Therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request
for correction of any error or injustice expired on 1 January 1950.
However, the applicant has provided evidence to support his request for a
grant of clemency based on good post-service conduct.  In view of the
submitted evidence and since good post service conduct could only accrue
subsequent to discharge from the Army, it is in the interest of justice to
waive failure to timely file in this case.
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JS___  __SLP __  ___SK __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.




                                      ____John N. Slone____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040007323                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050712                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)          |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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