PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            16 October 2003                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2003088150

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry		Member	
	Ms. Mae M. Bullock		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 reconsideration of his previous application to correct his military records by upgrading his discharge.  

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that that in order to be consistent, the Board must grant him an HD because the relevant facts are similar to those contained in another case which resulted in a Board upgrade.  He states that his argument is similar to the one used by the applicant in the upgrade case referred to.  He states that he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-638, for unfitness or unsuitability.  However, he claims that under current standards there is no discharge by reason of unfitness.  He claims that given the circumstances of his discharge, under current standards, he would be separated by reason of unsatisfactory performance, which authorizes the issue of either an honorable discharge (HD) or a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).  He contends that his service was meritorious enough to warrant an upgrade of his discharge to an HD, as evidenced by his service awards, which include the Purple Heart, and his conduct and efficiency ratings.

4.  The applicant also states that he wishes to clarify that he was in Tokyo, Japan on 28 January 1946, when he reenlisted and does not understand why during its original deliberations, the Board concluded that he left the Pacific Theater of Operations (PTO) for an unknown reason on that date.  He states that the record clearly shows that he arrived in the PTO on 28 January 1946, and that he was there until departing on a furlough to the United States on 2 March 1946.  He further states that he returned from his furlough in the United States and arrived back in the PTO on 18 July 1946.  He states that it was upon his return that the problems began that ultimately led to his undesirable discharge (UD).  He states that he points this out because he would like the Board to understand he was home on an authorized leave from 2 March through 18 July 1946.  

5.  The Memorandum of Consideration (MOC) of the Board’s 4 March 2003 review of the case (AR2003083514) is incorporated herein by reference as if wholly set forth.  At the time of this consideration, the Board did not have before it the applicant’s military service record containing the facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge.  This record has now been made available to the Board, which will allow for a more comprehensive review of the case.  

6.  The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States and initially entered active duty on 13 October 1944.  He continuously served on active duty until being honorably discharged for the purpose of reenlistment on 27 January 1946.  

7.  The separation document (WD AGO 53-55) issued to the applicant for his period of active duty service between 13 October 1944 and 27 January 1946 confirms that he held the rank of private first class (PFC) and the military occupational specialty (MOS) of 504 (Ammunition Bearer).  This document also confirms that he served in the PTO for five months, participated in the Luzon Island Campaign, and earned the following awards during this period of active duty service:  Combat Infantryman Badge, Purple Heart; Asiatic-Pacific Theater Ribbon; Philippine Liberation Ribbon with 1 bronze service star; and Luzon Island Campaign Medal.  

8.  On 28 January 1946, the applicant reenlisted and began the period of service under review.  His disciplinary record during this period includes a conviction of willfully and unlawfully entering an off limits area on 18 September 1946, by a special court-martial; and a conviction of entering an off limits area on 
14 October 1946, by a summary court-martial.  There is no other record of unit punishment or court-martial during this period.  

9.  On 26 March 1947, the applicant’s unit commander requested that a board of officers be appointed to consider taking action against the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 and/or 615-369.  Included with the commander’s request were statements from a first lieutenant and technical sergeant, who both indicated that the applicant had been undergoing training with the Troop, but claimed that since he had been in combat , he did not have to undergo training and he could not think clearly.  The unit commander also cited a letter from the Squadron medical officer as the basis for taking the action.  The medical officer’s statement indicated that after thorough consideration and examination of the applicant, he found him unsuitable for further military service. The medical officer stated that as a result of the applicant’s inability to carry on the regular duties of a soldier and his undesirable traits, he did not possess the qualities necessary for military training.  As a result, the medical officer recommended that the applicant be processed for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368.  

10.  On 19 April 1947, a board of officers considered the applicant’s case and after reviewing his service record, the board found that the applicant possessed habits and traits of character other than those indicating discharge for physical or mental conditions, which rendered his retention in the service undesirable.  The board of officers recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368, by reason of undesirable habits and traits of character, and that he be furnished a WD AGO Form 53-56 (Discharge from the Army of the United States-Blue).  On 11 June 1947, the applicant was discharged accordingly. 

11.  The WD AGO Form 53-56 issued to the applicant upon his separation confirms that the authority for his discharge was paragraph 1 (Undesirable Habits and Traits of Character), Army Regulation 615-368, dated 7 March 1945.  The separation document does not include a characterization of service.  It also shows that during this period of active duty service, the applicant was awarded the World War II Victory Medal and the Army of Occupation Medal with Japan Clasp.  

12.  In its original consideration of the case, the Board did not have before it the applicant’s service record and it based its determinations in large measure on a partially legible separation document, which it incorrectly presumed was a 
WD AGO Form 53-58 (GD) as opposed to a WD AGO 53-59 (UD), which the applicant thought he had received.  The Board further cited later version of Army Regulation 615-368 as the authority for the applicant’s discharge.  This version of the regulation that came into effect 1 July 1947, the month after the applicant’s discharge, did authorize the issue of either a GD or UD for separation for unfitness (undesirable habits or traits of character).  

13.  In support of his case, the applicant provides a copy of a Board decisional document that recommended a discharge upgrade on an individual who had been originally discharged for unfitness on 29 May 1956.  That Board based its decision on the specific facts and circumstances of that case, and it decided that under current standards the individual in question would have been separated under unsatisfactory performance provisions of the regulation, which authorized either an honorable or general discharge.  

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.  On 16 December 1944 a 
policy revision of the Blue discharge (WD AGO Form 53-56) was announced, due to the exigencies of war, which eliminated character of service as a separation criteria.  This was the policy governing “Blue Discharges” that was in effect on the date the applicant’s discharge.  

15.  On 1 July 1947, the UD replaced the Blue Discharge and the GD came into existence.  The GD was designed to eliminate criticism of the Blue Discharge, which was issued to members who simply could not adjust to military life as well as members guilty of willful misconduct.  

16.  Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and procedures for separation of enlisted personnel for undesirable habits and traits of character.  Paragraph 1 provided for the separation of an enlisted man who gave evidence of habits or traits of character which served to render his retention in the service undesirable, and his rehabilitation was considered impossible 
after repeated attempts to accomplish the same had failed.  The regulation stipulated that members separated under its provisions would be furnished a 
WD AGO Form 53-56 (Discharge from the Army of the Untied States-Blue).  A Blue Discharge Certificate contained the authority for discharge and was issued to identify a less than fully honorable discharge; however, it did not contain a characterization of service. 

17.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides the current Army policy for the separation of enlisted personnel.  It does not provide provisions for separation for undesirable habits and traits of character.  Under current standards, based on the judgment of the unit commander, separation of members who possess undesirable habits and traits can be separated under either unsatisfactory performance (chapter 13) or misconduct (chapter 14) provisions of the regulation depending on the commander’s evaluation of the specific facts and circumstances of the case.  

18.  Chapter 13 of the current regulation provides for the separation of members for unsatisfactory performance when it is the commander’s judgment that the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier. 

19.  Chapter 14 of the same regulation provides for the separation of 
enlisted members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor 
disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member under this chapter when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.

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.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that in order to be fair, the Board must grant him an honorable discharge based on the facts of his case being similar to case which resulted in the Board recommending an upgrade of a UD to a GD.  However, it finds this does not provide a basis for granting the requested relief.  The Board bases its decision on each case it reviews independently based on the specific facts and circumstances of the particular case.  While facts may appear similar in the case cited by the applicant, they are very different and lend little support to his request.  

2.  In the cited case, the individual was originally separated with an UD in 1956 under regulatory provisions that were very different from those applied in the applicant’s case.  While the applicant still appears to be under the impression he received an UD, this is not the case.  The evidence of record confirms that he actually received a Blue Discharge with no characterization of service.  This discharge was issued to show that his service for that particular period was less than fully honorable. 

3.  The Board did take into consideration the fact that it did not have the applicant’s service record and/or the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge during its original review of the case.  Further, it  determined that the partially legible separation document it reviewed lead to an incorrect determination that the applicant likely received a GD and was separated under regulatory provisions that did not come into effect until a month after his discharge.  

4.  The evidence of record now available to the Board confirms that the applicant served honorably during combat in World War II and received both the Purple Heart and the Combat Infantryman Badge during his first term of honorable service.  It also finds that he was properly discharged from his second term of service for undesirable habits and traits of character subsequent to the action and recommendation of a properly constituted board of officers.  However, the Board  does find that the applicant’s separation was primarily based on his not possessing the qualities necessary for military training, as alluded to in the supporting medical evaluation.  It further finds that the disciplinary infractions used to support the case were relatively minor and would probably not support a discharge for misconduct under current standards.  

5.  Based on its complete evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case as represented in the records now presented to the Board, it concludes that under current standards the applicant would likely be separated for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of chapter 13 of 
Army Regulation 635-200.  However, the Board further finds that the applicant’s conduct and performance during the period of service under review diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge and supports his receiving a GD for this period of service.  

6.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, correcting the applicant’s records as recommended below would correct an error or rectify an injustice.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that he individual concerned received a general, under honorable conditions discharge, by reason of unsatisfactory performance, on 11 June 1947, in lieu of the uncharacterized “Blue Discharge” of the same date he now holds.  

BOARD VOTE:

_MB___  ___HOF__  ___AO__    GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Arthur A. Omartian
		 CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003088150	
SUFFIX		
RECON	AR2003083514	
DATE BOARDED	2003/10/	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	Blue	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1947/06/11	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 615-368	
DISCHARGE REASON	Undesirable Habits and Traits	
BOARD DECISION	Grant Partial 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.