BOARD DATE:	  30 July 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140021402 


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 "blue" discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect:

   a.  His discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 20 months of service with no other adverse action. 
   
   b.  He was arrested for sitting on a bicycle that didn't belong to him.
   
   c.  He feels that a lifetime of restitution is too great a penalty to pay for the offense he committed; therefore, he seeks compassion and understanding.

   d.  On 12 July 1941, he and some other Soldiers were drinking to celebrate his 19th birthday.  When the party was over, he and another Soldier headed back to the bus station in Columbus, GA by foot.  On their way back, they noticed a bicycle leaning against a building.  They decided to ride it to the bus station.  The police saw them, arrested them, and charged them with stealing the bicycle.  They were advised to plead guilty.  Since they were young and scared, they agreed to do so.  At their trial, the judge stated, "I'm going to make an example of you boys."  The judge sentenced them to 12 months in jail.  After serving about 
2 months, he was released.  
   
   
   e.  When the war was declared he tried to reenter the service, but he was denied.  He would have sought relief at that time, but he didn't know the Discharge Review Board existed until he read about it in the Parade Magazine on Sunday, 15 February 1981.  
   
   f.  Since being discharged, he has lived a wonderful and rewarding life with the exception of the stigma of having a less than an honorable discharge.  
   
   g.  He has been married for over 24 years and he is well respected in his community.  He worked for the Bethlehem Steel Corporation for 38 years.
   
   h.  His discharge is a nagging memory, and before he expires he would like to have consideration given for an upgrade.  He doesn't feel the offense he committed should have resulted in denying him the opportunity to fully serve his country.  

3.  The applicant provides his War Department (WD) AGO Form Number 56 (Discharge from the Army of the United States (Blue)), his Enlisted Record, and a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States).  

4.  Although he indicates he has provided a cover letter, a copy of an article from the Parade Magazine, dated 15 February 1981, and a letter from the Department of the Army, dated 17 April 1981, these documents were not enclosed with his application.  

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.  This case is being considered using the documents submitted by the applicant.

3.  The applicant provided his Enlisted Record which shows he enlisted on 4 November 1939.  This document also shows he completed 1 year, 8 months, and 1 day of military service for longevity pay and he had 66 days of lost time. 

4.  The facts and circumstances of the applicant's separation are not in the documents available for consideration in this case.

5.  The applicant provided his WD AGO Form 56 which shows he was discharged from the Army of the United States on 31 July 1941 under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-360 by reason of conviction by a civilian criminal court.  This discharge document shows he was 18 years of age when he enlisted.  

6.  There is no indication that the Secretary of War's Discharge Review Board or the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant's request for an upgrade of his "blue" discharge to an honorable discharge.

7.  Army Regulation 615-360 (Enlisted Man Discharge: Release from Active Duty), in effect at the time, set forth the policy and procedures for separation of enlisted personnel.  Section IX provided for cases involving conviction by a civilian criminal court for any offense involving treason, murder, rape, kidnapping, arson, sodomy, or pandering; any sex crime; any drug crime; or any offense if sentenced to a period of more than 1 year.  The regulation provided that a WD AGO Form 53-56 (Blue) would be furnished to all persons discharged under this regulation.   

8.  The WD AGO Form 56, called the "Blue Discharge," was used between 1925 and 1947.  The "Blue" title came from the fact that it was printed on blue paper.  It was called simply "Discharge" as distinguished from the other discharges at that time, the Honorable Discharge and the Dishonorable Discharge.  The "Blue Discharge" was not characterized, in the current use of that term, in that it was not stated to be either honorable or dishonorable.  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.  





DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 20 months of service with no other adverse action is acknowledged.  

2.  The applicant's Enlisted Record shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-360 by reason of conviction by a civilian criminal court and he had a record of 66 days of lost time.

3.  The available evidence is void of facts and circumstances pertaining to the events which led to his discharge.  However, absent evidence to the contrary, especially after the passage of 60 years, regularity in the discharge process must be presumed.  

4.  The applicant claims that he was young and scared so he agreed to plead guilty of the offense.  The available evidence shows the applicant was 18 years of age when he enlisted in the Army of the United States and he was about 19 years of age at the time of his offenses.  However, there is no evidence that indicates the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.  

5.  The applicant contends that he tried to reenter the service when the war was declared, but he was denied.  The reason for his denial for reentering during the war is unknown.  However, 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.  

6.  The applicant's contentions regarding his post service achievements and conduct were considered.  However, good post service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a discharge.

7.  Based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant's service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  

8.  There is insufficient evidence that would warrant granting the applicant's 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.



      _______ _   X_______   ___
               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)                                         AR20140021402



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140021402



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1