PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:           22 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000040025

	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. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was the victim of racism during his military service in the 1950’s.  In a letter written by the applicant’s sister, it is revealed that the applicant has psychiatric problems.  A Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) memorandum from 12 November 1959 provides a diagnosis of “paranoid personality, chronic, severe, manifested by schizoid type of adjustment coupled with suspiciousness, stubbornness, impulsive and immature acts.  The applicant’s sister requests that his discharge be characterized as “medical” and not undesirable.

4.  The applicant's military records were lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973.  Information herein was obtained from alternate sources.

5.	The applicant served in the regular Army from 22 March 1956 to 
17 April 1957.  According to the VA memorandum cited above, the applicant allegedly complained about three white soldiers who kept the barracks lights on after Taps on 2 November 1956.  The next morning, the white soldiers allegedly overturned the applicant’s bunk and used racial slurs against him.  He then went AWOL to Washington, DC to see the Inspector General.  He was allegedly AWOL from 3-5 November 1956.  He went AWOL a second time on 
21 November 1956 to go to the headquarters of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).  Upon his return, he was disrespectful in language toward his company commander.  His commander then processed him for an administrative separation for unfitness.  He received an undesirable discharge (UD) on 17 April 1957 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.

6.  Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members found to be unfit for further military service, and without rehabilitative potential, would be separated.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

7.  There is no record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review for a discharge upgrade within the time limit established by that board.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant received a UD for unfitness after serving slightly more than 1 year of service.  The only record concerning the events that led to the applicant’s administrative separation action is the unsubstantiated account contained in the VA memorandum dated 12 November 1959.
2.  The VA memorandum established that the applicant was suffering from a post-service psychiatric disorder and was emotionally unstable. Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.  The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.  Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual’s medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency.

3.  In the applicant’s case, the Board accepts the account of his service provided in the VA memorandum of 12 November 1959.  The Board concludes that the applicant’s UD was overly harsh given the circumstances presented in the VA memorandum.

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

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by voiding the 17 April 1957 UD now held by the individual concerned and by issuing to him a general discharge under honorable conditions, dated 17 April 1957.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__mdm__  __wtm___  __clg___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__Mark D. Manning__
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000040025	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000622	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19570417	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	A50	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PLUS	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DASA	
ISSUES         1.	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.