MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           26 April 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000035420

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Ms. Juanita I. Williams		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy 		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That the reason and authority for his discharge from the Army be changed and that he be credited with an additional 6 months of active service.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he served in the Army during two periods of service with no adverse actions; however, he was not allowed to complete his [second] enlistment and was discharged without a reason or a hearing 6 months before he would have completed his term of service.  He states that he was unjustly labeled as being inept and unable to adapt to military service and was discharged without due process because of racial discrimination.

The applicant was retired from the civilian sector of the Federal Government on 
1 September 1978.  He contends that had he not been discharged from the Army 
6 (sic) months prior to the expiration of his term of service, he would have been credited with an additional 6 months of service upon his retirement from the Federal Government.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were lost or destroyed in the fire that occurred in 1973 at the records center in St. Louis, Missouri.  The information herein was gleaned from reconstructed records consisting of the applicant’s two separation documents (WDAGO Forms 
53-55) and miscellaneous correspondence generated subsequent to his military service.  The available information shows:

The applicant was born on 22 January 1922.  He was inducted into the Army on 19 March 1943 and entered active duty on 26 March 1943.  He completed basic combat training and was awarded military occupational specialty of laundry machine operator in the Quartermaster Corps.  He departed the United States for the European-African-Middle Eastern (EAME) Theater of Operations on 
28 August 1944 and served there until 12 March 1946, arriving back in the States on 23 March 1946.   He was credited with participation in the Rhineland Campaign while in the EAME Theater of Operations and was awarded the EAME Campaign Medal, the World War II Victory Medal, and the Good Conduct Medal. On 2 April 1946 he was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-365 by reason of “convenience of the government – demobilization.”  He had attained and was discharged in the grade of corporal with credit for 3 years and 14 days of active service.

One month later, on 2 May 1946, the applicant reentered the Army through enlistment.  (Item 5 of the separation document prepared for this period of service shows “RA 18 mos).”  He enlisted in his previous grade of corporal and military occupational specialty of laundry machine operator.  He completed 
10 months and 22 days of stateside service on this enlistment before being honorably discharged on 23 March 1947 at Camp Lee, Virginia in the rank of corporal.  The authority shown for his separation at that time was Army Regulation 615-369.  No narrative reason for separation is shown; however, 
the Remarks portion of the separation document states “Not eligible for re-enlistment, induction, or re-induction.” 

Correspondence in the reconstructed records in the form of a letter the applicant wrote to The Adjutant General’s office on 26 July 1947 shows him requesting an Application for Review of Discharge or Separation from the Army.  On 
3 September 1948, in a letter from the Oakland chapter of the American Red Cross, the applicant was informed that a representative of the Discharge Review Counsel of the Red Cross in Washington, D.C., had stated “It is impossible for him to learn the exact reason why an unfavorable notation was made on your discharge paper.”

Army Regulation 615-369 in effect at the time provided for the separation of enlisted personnel for inaptitude or unsuitability.  Discharge for inaptitude was effected when it was determined that a soldier did not possess the required degree of adaptability for military service after reasonable attempts had been made to reclassify and reassign him in keeping with his abilities and qualifications.  Separation for unsuitability was effected when it was determined that the soldier was unsuitable for further military service because of a lack of physical stamina; character and behavior disorders; mental deficiency, apathy, defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort; non-persistent but temporarily  disruptive reactions to acute or special stress; or enuresis.

The regulation further provided that an administrative board would be convened to hear the facts.  When discharge was recommended by the board and approved by the appropriate approval authority, the term to be used on the soldier’s separation document as reason and authority for discharge “will be merely paragraph 1, AR 615-369 or paragraph 2, AR 615-369, as appropriate.”  Further, an individual discharged for inaptitude or unsuitability “will be furnished a WDAGO Form 53-58 (General Discharge).”  Reentry into the Army of a soldier discharged under this authority was not authorized unless the cause of discharge was subsequently removed and reentry was authorized by The Adjutant General.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  Through no fault of this Board or the applicant, the applicant’s records were lost in the fire that occurred at the records repository in St. Louis, Missouri, in July 1973.  In the absence of his discharge packet, which would have contained documentation upon which the initiation and subsequent approval of his administrative discharge were based, the Board presumes administrative regularity in the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-369.  

2.  It appears the applicant enlisted the second time for a period of 18 months and was discharged after completing only 10 months and 22 days of that enlistment.  However, he has submitted no evidence and none is available that suggests he was denied due process and was prematurely discharged from that term of service because of racial prejudice.  Even acknowledging and considering the fact that racial prejudice was prevalent at the time, the applicant still has the burden of proving that his discharge was the result of such conduct or behavior.    

3.  The Board notes that Army Regulation 615-369 authorized discharge for inaptitude or unsuitability and that although the applicant states that his discharge was for inaptitude, his separation document does not specifically indicate (by paragraph 1 or 2) whether his discharge was for inaptitude or unsuitability.  Nonetheless, it is noted that the applicant was awarded an honorable discharge when the governing regulation authorized only a general discharge.  

4.  The Board takes cognizance of the fact that the applicant served in combat during his first period of service and was honorably discharged in the grade of corporal.  However, each of his periods of service is viewed separately.  The fact that he successfully completed his first period of service does not preclude the possibility of his having been properly discharged from his second period of service for a reason or reasons enumerated in Army Regulation 615-369.   

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___sk____  ___kak_____  ___clg_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR200035420	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000APR26	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HONORABLE)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1947MAR23	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 615-369	
DISCHARGE REASON	110.02	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	92.14	
2.	92.17	
3.	93.15	
4.		
5.		
6.