PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  11 July 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002072219

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Chairperson	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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, a review of the characterization of his discharge.  His prior request in 1988 was administratively closed based on the lack of sufficient records.

3.  The applicant defers to a Member of Congress (MC).  The MC states that the applicant was a conscientious objector when he entered the Army and performed his assigned duties while expressing his moral and religious objections to military service.  When the applicant informed Army officials that he could no longer perform his military duties he was separated with a less than honorable discharge with a poor characterization of service.

4.  The MC provides a copy of the discharge board proceedings, which state in part, that the applicant "was sincere in his beliefs and performed his assigned duties well."  The MC believes that the nature of the many positive statements contained in the board transcript make the case that his poor characterization was wrong.  The MC further believes that the burden of proof of the poor characterization has shifted to the Army and should be changed if unable to provide proof to the contrary.

5.  The applicant’s military records were lost or destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center.  This case was reviewed with limited records made available from alternate sources.

6.  The applicant's WD AGO Form 56 (Blue Discharge) shows that he was inducted on 8 August 1942, at over 22 years of age.  His civilian occupation was listed as student.  Copies of official correspondence in the available record shows that he was transferred from the Army Medical Center in Washington, DC to Valley Forge General Hospital, in Pennsylvania on or about September 1943.

7.  A 22 November 1943 typed statement from the applicant to his commanding officer at the Valley Forge General Hospital (VFGH) requested that he be released from the Army because he was conscientiously opposed to participation in war.  Although he had requested and been classified for non-combatant duties by his draft board, he now believed that he could not accept even non-combatant duties and wished to be assigned to a Civilian Public Service Camp.  He was now convinced that there was no position he could hold in the Army and live with his conscience.

8.  The applicant had prepared an earlier typewritten letter saying he could no longer cooperate with the Selective Service law.  He said he would oppose any law that denied his freedom to the "God-directed conscience" and he "no longer intended to submit (his) conscience for classification."

9.  A 2 June 1944 psychiatric consultation resulted in the opinion that the applicant did not possess the required degree of adaptability for the military service and should be considered for discharge.  The applicant had been in the legal process of seeking a discharge as a conscientious objector and had not presented overt acts against military discipline.  The applicant was obviously sincere in his beliefs and should not be required to present further proof of his inadaptability.  His case was considered to be analogous to that of a homosexual discharged under the same provision, not because of an overt act he may have performed, but because of a tendency, which may in the future involve disciplinary difficulties.

10.  On 9 June 1944, the applicant appeared before a board of officers to determine if he should be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-360, section VIII, prior to the expiration of his term of service.  The board heard from several officer and enlisted witnesses who had either worked with or knew the applicant and his circumstances.  Most related that he seemed sincere in his beliefs and performed his duties well, although in a mostly mechanical manner.  Several witnesses testified that the applicant did not want to be subjected to wearing the Army uniform and did not believe that one man should be placed in authority over another man.

11.  In his statement to the board the applicant refused to make a sworn statement but responded with unsworn statements.  The applicant was asked what the difference would be if he worked in the hospital in civilian clothes and not a uniform.  He responded that he could not continue in the Army because he opposed having a superior officer.  An officer does not ask you to do something, like a civilian boss, you are under his control and are required (to obey).  He felt that he was being disciplined every time he was directed to do something and it prevented him from doing what he wanted to do.  The activities in the Army were too controlled by a few in authority and they did not know the capabilities of the people under them.

12.  When the applicant was asked again about his problem with wearing a uniform, the applicant responded that he was opposed to wearing it because he did not want to represent one country more than another.  In closing he stated that if we "continue to take up the very same methods that the Japs and the Germans do take up we become more like them."

13.  The board concluded that the applicant gave evidence of habits and traits of character other than those indicating discharge for physical or mental conditions as provided for in section two of the regulation.  He was considered unfit to associate with enlisted men.  The board recommended that he be discharged for habits and traits of character, which render his retention in the service undesirable.  He was to be given a "Blue" discharge and given a "Poor" character rating with the entry that he was not recommended for further service.
14.  The separation authority approved the recommendations of the board on 19 June 1944.  Effective 24 June 1944 the applicant was discharged under the authority of Army Regulation 615-360, section VIII, with a "Blue" discharge.  The reverse side of the form shows that he completed 1 year, 10 months, and 17 days service.  His grade was shown as private and his Army specialty as band.  His character was listed as "Poor."  The applicant authenticated this form with his signature and thumbprint.

15.  The applicant's WD AGO Form 53 (Report of Separation) shows that his type of discharge was "Other" and neither honorable nor dishonorable.  His character at separation is again listed as "Poor."

16.  Army Regulation 615-360 (Enlisted Men Discharge; Release from Active Duty, dated 25 May 1944, in effect at the time, provided authority for separation under section VIII for inaptness or undesirable habits or traits of character.  When discharge is recommended and approved a "Blue" discharge WD AGO Form 56 will be issued.

17.  The WD AGO Form 56 (Discharge form the Army of the United States (blue)), 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.  The “Blue Discharge” was given to enlisted members for a variety of reasons to include minority (under age), fraudulent enlistment or induction, inaptness, lack of adaptability for military service, habits or traits of character rendering retention in the service not desirable, civil confinement, and disability not in the line of duty.

18.  Army Regulation 345-470 (Military Records, Discharge Certificate), 10 May 1934, with changes 1-5, in effect at the time, stated that discharge certificates will show the reason for discharge.  It will also show his character as a soldier and as a man in one of the following terms: Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, or Poor. For the “Blue Discharge” the choice was limited to Fair or Poor.

19.  On 14 April 1987, the National Personnel Records Center provided the applicant with a National Archives Form 13038 (Certification of Military Service) showing incorrectly that the applicant’s service had been terminated by an “Other than Honorable Discharge" on 24 June 1944.

20.  Newspaper articles from 1964 and 2002 discuss the applicant's service as a church minister for over 50 years after his graduation from a university divinity school.  The articles discuss his lifetime commitment to conscience and compassion.  He worked mostly at impoverished inner-city churches and was especially concerned about the inner-city problems of education, crime, housing, and poverty.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was discharged with a “Blue Discharge” that was neither dishonorable nor honorable.  Under regulations in effect at the time, the “Blue Discharge” was not characterized, in the current use of that term, to be either “Under Honorable Conditions” or “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.”  At that time, there was no effort to make such a distinction.  The “Blue Discharge” was simply a “Discharge” without characterization.  It is incorrect to now label the applicant’s discharge as “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.”  As such, the NA Form 13038 now in the applicant’s military record, stating that the applicant’s service was terminated by “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions”, is in error and should be removed from his record.  The characterization of an “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions” discharge is a degradation of the “Blue Discharge” that he was issued at the time of discharge under regulations and policy that existed at that time.  The applicant should be issued a new Certificate of Military Service showing that his service was terminated by: “Discharge from the Army of the United States (blue), by reason of AR 615-360, Section VIII.

2.  The applicant was required to appear before a board of officers to determine his continued adaptability for military service.  He had made repeated verbal and written statements that he could no longer continue to serve in the Army or perform his duties.  Although he had not been subject to prior disciplinary actions and had performed his required duties, he stated to the board that his desired conscientious objector status prevented him from continuing to serve in the Army, wearing of the uniform, or following the orders of superior officers despite the fact that his country was involved in a World War.

3.  The board determined that the applicant was exhibiting habits and traits of character, which rendered his retention in the service undesirable.  The board also determined that based on the evidence his character at the time of discharge should be recorded as "Poor."

4.  The fact that the applicant had a clean record, was performing his duties, and was sincere in his beliefs, does not alter the fact that he was issued a "Blue" discharge with a "Poor" character at the time of his separation based on the threat that he was no longer going to perform his duties, follow orders, or wear the Army uniform.

5.  Notwithstanding the above, due to the passage of time, the applicant's post service conduct, and service to his community for over 50 years are deserving of a recognition of compassion.  The Board believes that it would now be fair and just to also correct the records to show that he was separated with a character of "Fair".

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 for the individual concerned by:

	a.  removing from his record any reference or form that shows that he was given a “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions” discharge;

	b.  issuing him a Certificate of Military Service that shows that his service was terminated by: “Discharge from the Army of the United States (blue), by reason of AR 615-360, Section VIII”; and

	c.  issuing corrections to his WD AGO Forms 53 and 56 to show his character as "Fair."

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__tk___  ___ho___  ___jm__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___Ted S. Kanamine___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002072219	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020711	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	BLUE	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19440624	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 615-360, Section VIII	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PARTIAL	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	A93.25/26	
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.