BOARD DATE: 14 November 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002396 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __x______ _x_______ __x______ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 14 November 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002396 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20050004703 on 23 November 2005. __________x_______________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. BOARD DATE: 14 November 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002396 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant, the wife of the deceased former service member (FSM), requests reconsideration of her previous request for an upgrade of the FSM’s undesirable discharge. 2. The applicant states, in effect, her late husband’s discharge should be upgraded to show respect for those who served our country during the time of war. The FSM was wounded in action and he was awarded the Purple Heart. After he was discharged he was a good citizen. 3. The applicant provides the FSM’s: * Certification of Military Service, dated 5 March 1999 * DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States) * Marriage License * Certificate of Death * Military record (a large portion) CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the FSM’s case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20050004703 on 23 November 2005. 2. The applicant provides a new argument that warrants consideration by the Board. 3. The FSM enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 29 June 1950. His record reveals an extensive history of confinement, multiple instances of being absent without leave (AWOL), multiple instances of disobeying lawful orders, dereliction of duties, and wrongfully having in his possession with intent to deceive an instrument purporting to be an official pass, then knowing the same to be false. 4. The FSM’s service record shows he served in Korea from December 1950 to March 1952 and he was awarded the Purple Heart for wounds received as a result of enemy action on 2 June 1951. His record also shows he was: * convicted by three special courts-martial and one summary court-martial * AWOL for 78 days from 19 December 1950 to 6 March 1951 and 2 days from 23 to 24 May 1951 * confined for 67 days from 8 August to 12 October 1951, 97 days from 27 June to 1 October 1952, 149 days from 12 November 1952 to 9 April 1953, and 27 days from 10 June to 6 July 1953 5. On 18 June 1953, The FSM underwent a pre-board mental health examination at the request of his commanding officer. The FSM’s screening examination revealed no mental disorder of a sufficient degree that would warrant medical separation. 6. On that same date, the FSM's immediate commander requested a board of officers be convened under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 615-368 (Enlisted Men - Discharge - Unfitness (Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character)) for the purpose of determining the FSM's fitness for retention due to habitual misconduct. The immediate commander stated the FSM: * had undesirable habits and/or traits of character * was disqualified for service physically or in character through his own misconduct * was a chronic malingerer * presented a very slovenly appearance * had poor character and his efficiency was unsatisfactory * had been given numerous consultations, reprimanded, and punished 7. On 8 July 1953, he was directed to appear before a board of officers to determine whether he should be separated from the Army for unfitness. The FSM acknowledged receipt of the notification. 8. On 9 July 1953, a board of officers convened at Headquarters, Fort Eustis, Virginia, for the purpose of determining the FSM’s suitability for retention. The board found the FSM's record revealed evidence of traits of character which rendered his retention in the service undesirable and recommended the FSM’s discharge from the Army under the provisions of AR 615-368 for unfitness with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 12 July 1953, the board of officer’s recommendation was approved. 9. Accordingly, on 4 August 1953, the FSM was discharged under the provisions of AR 615-368, due to unfitness, with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 year, 11 months, and 6 days of net active service and he had 420 days of lost time. 10. The Army Discharge Review Board reviewed the FSM’s discharge on two previous occasions and found it proper and equitable. 11. In the processing of this case the Army Review Boards Agency Senior Medical Advisor provided an advisory opinion. The Senior Medical Advisor opined that: a. At the time of the FSM’s military service the available record does not reasonably support post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or another boardable behavioral health condition. The FSM had a condition that existed prior to service (EPTS) and an in-service history of illegal drug abuse (heroin). He had two periods of AWOL, and one was significant (78 days) prior to overseas combat deployment that may have been related to substance abuse or other EPTS financial or legal circumstances. The FSM noted a period of forced abstention from illegal substances while deployed to Korea through June 1952, and he later resumed substance abuse until (or unless) confined to the stockade. b. The FSM met mental health retention standards. His separation was based on work performance/efficiency and conduct. Both were unsatisfactory per sworn statements and available records through discharge. c. Behavioral health conditions were not mitigating for the FSM’s misconduct. Behavior health conditions were present at time of misconduct; however, they were EPTS conditions. Substance abuse EPTS and at the time of the FSM’s pre-deployment AWOLs (two) and it is unknown (whether substance abuse was involved) at the time of the fraudulent pass incident in 1951. Substance abuse EPTS and restarted upon the FSM’s return to the United States during the period 1952 to 1953, interrupted by periods of confinement for the Uniform Code of Military Justice violations. d. On 2 July 1953, a mental hygiene evaluation was completed for the FSM. e. The FSM met medical retention standards for history of right arm injury (gunshot wound; Purple Heart), hip pain, history of venereal disease, and other physical, medical and/or behavioral or mental conditions in accordance with chapter 3, AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), and following the provisions set forth in AR 635-40 (Personnel Separations Physical Evaluation for Retention, Separation or Retirement (that were applicable to the FSM's era of service)). f. The FSM's medical conditions were duly considered during medical separation processing. A review of the available documentation found no evidence of a medical disability or condition which would support a change to the FSM’s character of service or reason for discharge in this case. g. Based on the information available for review at the time, the FSM did not have mitigating medical or behavioral health condition(s) for the offenses which led to his discharge from the Army. There is no significant evidence of "shell shock," "battle fatigue" or PTSD-like symptoms contributing to the FSM's misconduct. It does appear from the available post-military history that the FSM later overcame the behavioral and performance issues that led to his discharge from the military. REFERENCES: 1. AR 615-368, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel by reason of unfitness. That regulation provided for the discharge of individuals who demonstrated their unfitness by giving evidence of habits and traits of character manifested by misconduct. Unfitness included habits and traits of character manifested by antisocial or amoral trend, chronic alcoholism, criminalism, drug addiction, pathological lying, or misconduct. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. 2. AR 615-368, also stated, in pertinent part, that a board of officers would recommend that the individual either be discharged because of unfitness or unsuitability, or retained in the service. The regulation stated that discharge, if recommended, would be for unfitness, except that discharge because of unsuitability (under AR 615-369 (Enlisted Personnel - Discharge - Inaptitude or Unsuitability)), without referral to another board, might be recommended in borderline cases if military circumstances and the character of service rendered by the individual during his current period of service so warranted. As examples, such circumstances would apply where the cause of unfitness had been minor, relative to the length of efficient service or where there had been a definite effort at self-control; or where an individual had, during his current period of service, distinguished himself by an act of heroism, which in itself reflected great credit on the individual and the military service. 3. AR 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) governs the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. b. Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. DISCUSSION: 1. The evidence of record shows the FSM had a history of misconduct as evidenced by four court-martial convictions, multiple instances of being AWOL, undesirable military traits and habits, and disobeying lawful orders. Accordingly, his chain of command recommended a board of officers be convened for the purpose of determining the FSM's fitness for retention in the Army. The board found him unfit for retention and recommended the FSM be discharged with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 2. The FSM’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations at the time, with no procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. The separation authority directed the issuance of an undesirable discharge based on his overall record during the period under review. 3. The Army Review Boards Agency Senior Medical Advisor found no mitigating medical or behavioral health condition(s) for the offenses which led to his discharge from the Army. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160002396 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160002396 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2