IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	       28 October 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080013340 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he was told his general discharge could be converted to honorable after his discharge. 

3.  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.  Copy of his Resume. 

	c.  WD AGO Form 100 (Separation Qualification Record), dated 28 June 1948. 

	d.  Three character reference letters, dated on miscellaneous dates.  

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant’s military records are 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 that the applicant’s records were lost or destroyed in that fire.  However, there were sufficient documents remaining in a reconstructed record for the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.

3.  The applicant’s WD AGO Form 53-58 shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 8 January 1947 in New Orleans, Louisiana.  This form also shows he was trained in military occupational specialty (MOS) 405 (Clerk Typist) and that at the time of his separation, he was assigned to the 24th Infantry Regiment.  

4.  The applicant’s WD AGO Form 53-58 shows he served in the Asiatic-Pacific Theater of Operations during the period from on or about 7 June 1947 through
18 June 1948.  His awards and decorations include the World War II Victory Medal and the Army of Occupation Medal with Japan Clasp.

5.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not available for review with this case.  However, the applicant’s 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 unfitness, and was furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  This form further shows he completed 1 year, 6 months, and 21 days of creditable military service, 1 year and 26 days of which was foreign service.  

6.  The applicant submitted three character reference letters as follows:

    a.  In his letter, dated 14 December 2007, the Mayor of Englewood, California, remarks that he has known and worked with the applicant for nearly 12 years and that the applicant is recognized throughout the neighborhood for his commitment to the community and family.  The applicant has been a member of the Mayor’s Safety Commission and was a founding member of the Martin Luther King’s Day Celebration Committee.  He also coordinates thousands of scholarship dollars to high school students.  The applicant is a person with a multitude of talents and educational experience.

	b.  In a letter, dated 17 December 207, the Assistant Superintendent of the Inglewood Unified School District remarks that he has known the applicant for 25 years and that the applicant has exhibited great skill supervising school personnel, and instructional planning and that the applicant is a knowledgeable educator.

	c.  In a letter, dated 14 November 2007, a Hillcrest High School, Inglewood, California, teacher remarks on the impact the applicant has had on her life and career.  The applicant is an educator with many years of experience and excellence and has outstanding leadership abilities.

7.  Section VIII of Army Regulation (AR) 615-360 (Enlisted Personnel), dated 26 November 1942, provided for training, reassignment and reclassification, and rehabilitation for the inapt or inadaptable categories of enlisted Soldiers.  All cases were processed by a board of three officers, one of whom, if practicable, was a medical officer.  Whenever practicable, a psychiatrist was called as a witness.  But more often, the psychiatrist’s report of his examination and findings was utilized in lieu of testimony.  The board proceedings were governed by rules of procedure applicable in special courts-martial, and counsel was not authorized.  The board findings and recommendations were reviewed by the convening authority (the next higher commander) and forwarded to a major commander, usually a general officer for final action and discharge, if indicated.  

8.  Discharge under the provisions of section VIII was generally of the honorable type for the inapt or inadaptable categories by reason of considering that “the conduct of the enlisted man during his current period of service had been such as would render his retention in the service desirable were it not for his inaptitude or lack of required adaptability for military service.” In effect, such an individual was considered to possess defects of intelligence or personality which exculpated his inability to render adequate service.  Not so for the other two categories that involved acting out or psychopathic behavior, chronic alcoholism, or sexual perversion, including homosexuality, for which discharge without honor (blue) was usually given.

9.  In all cases whether honorable (white) or discharge without honor (blue), the reason for discharge as stated in the certificate of discharge was to be “Section VIII, 615-360; not eligible for reenlistment or induction.” Thus, from the discharge certificate alone, no differentiation could be made for the cause of the premature release from service.  On 20 July 1944, section VIII (AR 615-360) was superseded by two new regulations as follows:
	a.  AR 615-369 provided for the separation of enlisted personnel who were “inapt” or did not possess the “required degree of adaptability” for service, or “were disqualified for service because of enuresis.”  An honorable (white) discharge was authorized.

	b.  AR 615-368 became the direct descendant of section VIII and dealt with “habits and traits of character” which serve to render retention in the service undesirable and those who were “disqualified physically or in character through misconduct.”  Individuals discharged under this regulation received a blue discharge, unless the reviewing authority determined that an honorable discharge was to be given under AR 615-369.  The next revision of AR 615-368, issued on 7 March 1945, provided, as previously, for the elimination of enlisted personnel with undesirable habits and traits of character for “Psychopathic personality manifested by antisocial or amoral trends, criminalism, chronic alcoholism, drug addiction, pathological lying or sexual misconduct in the service.”

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s post service academic achievements, community involvement, commitment to education, and good standing in the community were considered.  However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to upgrade his discharge. 

2.  The applicant’s record is void of the facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army.  However, the applicant’s reconstructed record contains a copy of his WD AGO Form 53-58.  This document listed his authority for separation as Army Regulation 615-368.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show, to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant did not submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to grant the applicant the requested relief.






BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___X____  __X_____  ___X____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.



															XXX
      _______ _   _______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080013340



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080013340



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1