PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           1 March 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028679

	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.  

	Ms. McKim-Spilker		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Member	
	Mr. John Saputo		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                            records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	                 advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his Blue discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). 

3.  He states, in effect, that he received a Blue discharge because he was a conscientious objector.  The applicant submitted a NA Form 13038 (Certification of Military Service) which he received from the National Personnel Records Center, St. Louis with his application packet.  This certificate shows that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he was inducted into the U.S. Army on 10 March 1943.  He was assigned to Fort Knox, Kentucky, for basic combat training.

5.  The applicant’s record documents that the highest permanent rank he held on active duty was private/E-1 and the record contains no documented acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  

6.  The applicant’s record is void of nonjudicial punishments and court-martial proceedings, however, during basic training, the applicant refused to attend combatant training and objected to taking up arms.  He agreed to participate in non-combatant training and his performance was considered satisfactory for this type of training.  The unit commander recommended hospitalization because he believed the applicant to be “delusional”.

7.  On 21 May 1943 the applicant was hospitalized for observation of his mental condition.  The nurse’s notes during his hospitalization indicate that he was quiet, cooperative, sociable, well-mannered, and pleasant, although he read his Bible almost continuously and expressed strong religious tendencies.

8.  The doctor’s hospital summary shows that the applicant believed he was given a mission to teach the word of God and to set an example for sinners.  He indicated he was teaching the ways of God to his fellow soldiers.  He refused to bear arms or to attend weapons class, although he willingly performed almost continuous KP, labor, and extra duty.  

9.  On 3 June 1943 the American Red Cross made an unannounced visit to the applicant’s family.  The applicant’s father was a Holiness preacher and believed his son was going against the teachings of the church and should not under any circumstances kill anyone.  The applicant’s wife lived with his parents as she had an incurable cardiac condition; she was also quite religious.  His mother indicated that the applicant refused to kill, however, if placed in a non-combatant position (even medical), she believed he would serve the Army faithfully.    

10.  On 11 June 1943 the applicant was discharged from the hospital with a final diagnosis of constitutional psychopathic state, paranoid type.  The examiner indicated that he displayed evidence of a “consciencious objector” attitude towards war, which served to render his retention in the service undesirable.  The Hospital Disposition Board recommended him for discharge under the provisions of Section VIII, AR 615-360.  

11.  On 30 June 1943 the unit commander recommended the applicant for discharge under the provisions of Section VIII, AR 615-360 because of habits and traits of character detrimental to the best interests of the Army.

12.  On 14 July 1943 a board of officers convened to determine whether the applicant should be discharged from the Army.  The board recommended the applicant for discharge because of habits and traits of character that served to render his retention in the Army undesirable.  He was recommended for a Discharge Certificate WD AGO No. 56 Blue.

13.  On 23 July 1943 the applicant was discharged with a “Blue” Discharge Certificate under the provisions of Section VIII, AR 615-360.

14.  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.  Its use was first adapted to 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.

15.  Army Regulation 615-360, in effect at the time of the applicant’s discharge, set forth the general provisions governing the discharge of enlisted personnel.  Section VIII provided for the elimination of enlisted personnel giving evidence of inaptitude for military service, habits and traits of character detrimental to the interests of the Army, or disqualifying physical and mental conditions.  Individuals discharged under that regulation normally received a Blue Discharge. 

16.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s discharge proceedings appear to have been conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time of his separation.

2.  The record clearly demonstrates that the applicant was diagnosed with a constitutional psychopathic state disorder, paranoid type and his behavior was characterized by his religious objections to bear arms.  To the applicant’s credit, there was no misconduct of record and he willingly performed all non-combatant tasks and assignments with fervor.  

3.  The Board noted that the intent of the “Blue” discharge was not to characterize the applicant’s service, but to eliminate him from service for habits and traits of character rendering his retention in the service undesirable.

4.  The National Personnel Records Center erroneously characterized the applicant’s service as under than honorable conditions when he requested a copy of his service records. 

5.  Considering the circumstances surrounding this case to include the applicant’s record of a diagnosed psychiatric condition, and taking cognizance of the elapsed time since his discharge from service, it appears that the interest of justice would best be served by changing the applicant’s “Blue” discharge to an honorable discharge. 

6.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected to show that the individual concerned was separated from the service with an Honorable Discharge Certificate on 23 July 1943.  

2.  That the Department of the Army issue to the individual concerned an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 23 July 1943, in lieu of the discharge under honorable conditions of the same date now held by him.

BOARD VOTE:  

___gdp__  ___mmd_  ___js____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028679	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000301	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	BLUE	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19430723	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 615-360	
DISCHARGE REASON	4000	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  9324		
 2.  0100		
 3.  		
 4.		
 5.		
 6.