IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 March 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170001008 APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade of his character of service from under honorable conditions (general) to honorable. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate), dated 5 November 1954 * High School Equivalency Diploma (Number 8768), Education Department, University of the State of * membership cards (5) * identification card, City of Fire Department * two self-authored letters to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), undated * email, application support, dated 20 February 2020 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three-year period provided in Title 10, United States Code, section 1552(b); however, the ABCMR conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he is submitting his application and letter for an upgrade of his discharge because his family has served our beloved country dating back to his grandfather who fought at San Juan Hill and other family members in both World War I (WWI) and World War II (WWII), and two sons who served in Vietnam, including one of which is a disabled veteran. He contends his request to expedite his WWII draft board for his induction was granted in January 1954. He was an 18 year old schoolboy during WWII which was too young to be involved in a war. After entering the Army he completed basic training at Fort Dix, he was assigned to Fort Jackson for Radio School, and he then requested airborne training, which resulted in him being accepted. He states the following: a. Towards the end of school, he received several disturbing letters, some of which contained news of his mother being seriously ill with respiratory disease that she had suffered from for some time but was now escalating dangerously. He was the only child and close to his mother. The news was further disturbing as his fiancé was also stricken with Polio. She institutionalized for 17 months which resulted in her being crippled in the left leg and foot. His wife [fiancé] continued to have anxiety and other issues surrounding her abilities to be a wife. These issues continued to adversely affect him even after many calls to assure her there was no reason to change their planned life together. His ability to address the troubles at home and contacts with the Red Cross were basically futile, including communications with the Chaplain who was sympathetic but stated he was unable to help very much. b. He reported to Fort Bragg for airborne school, which he was not physically prepared for nor was his ability to mentally handle other options, which resulted in him, being hospitalized for several weeks to receive therapy. Upon release he reported to his company where he was met with disdain by his First Sergeant (1SG). He believes the 1SG saw him as a slacker although he did not truly know him. c. He was told he would receive medical leave, which he felt would help with his matters back home if he could be home for just a short time. He was strongly advised that there would be no going home and he was then ordered to supply to draw the necessary equipment for training. After leaving the office he was shaking and decided then that he would do what he thought was best regardless of the consequences. He felt he was out of options and went to the station and bought a ticket to go home. The decision was without a doubt the wrong action to take but he felt he had no other options. After being home for approximately five days his father asked to see his leave form and he knew then he had to return. He then turned himself in to the military police in Washington D.C. He spent the night in jail and he was transferred to Fort Belvoir, VA where he was questioned to find out if he had purchased a return ticket to Fort Bragg, NC and because he had a return ticket, he was released to return to his unit. d. After his return to Fort Bragg, NC, he was again hospitalized for several weeks. He was then released to his unit where he was given hard labor involving night marches with a full field pack. He went before a Board and was told he was going to be discharged. Although he was discharged, the day he put on the uniform it was his proudest day. He truly wanted to become airborne and always did what he was ordered to do even though life sadly dictates at times that we have to do things other than we want to do. e. After his discharge he earned his High School diploma. He has been married for 61 years to his then fiancé and they have 6 children, 13 grandchildren, and 3 great grandchildren. He worked as a lineman for 11 years, retired from the New York Fire Department after 27 years of service, and then he worked in the library system for 18 additional years. f. He belongs to many none secular and religious organizations and he believes he has lived a productive life. Nevertheless, his biggest regret for the past 62 years is the type of discharge he received, which, although generous was not what he had hoped for if all the circumstances were normal. g. He is now 82 years of age, his health is poor, and his eyesight is failing. He hopes the Board will upgrade his discharge. Additionally, he has a grandson who is an eight-year veteran and the Board should know that the family flies the flag outside the family home daily. h. He believes were it not for extraordinary circumstances he would have completed airborne school and served out his contractual requirements without incident, which would have included the level of conduct expected of him. He contends his age and experience did not allow him to be able to successfully deal with the issues during his time of service. The status of his discharge has remained on his mind for 60 years as a disappointment and at almost 82 years of age and in brittle health he desperately seeks to upgrade his discharge to Honorable. 3. The applicant’s complete military records are not available to the Board for review. A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members’ records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973. It is believed that much of the applicant’s records were lost or destroyed in that fire. However, there were sufficient documents remaining in a reconstructed record for the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case. 4. On 13 January 1954, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States. His DA Form 20 (Qualification Record – Enlisted Personnel) shows: * item 35 (Enlisted For) – Volunteer Airborne Training, on 21 May 1954 * item 41 (Classification in Military Occupational Specialties) – service school awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 1740 (Intermediate Speed Radio Operator), on 8 July 1954 * item 46 (Record of Current Service) – * Basic Training (BT) from 21 January to 2 April 1954 * Student (Advanced Individual Training (AIT)) from 3 April to 10 July 1954 5. The applicant's DD Form 230 (Service Record) for the period 13 January 1954 to 5 November 1954 shows: * Section 2 (Appointments, Promotions, or Reductions) – * Private (PVT)/E-2 (Permanent (P)), on 19 May 1954, under authority SR 615-25 – 40 (Par 8a) * PVT/E-1 (P), on 8 October 1954, under authority Summary Court Martial Orders (SUCMO) Number 115, Headquarters (HQ), 504th (AIR) * PVT/E-2 (P), on 4 November 1954, under authority Army Regulation (AR) 615-25-40, Para 8b * Section 3 (Organizations to Which Assigned and Attached) – * 82nd Replacement Company (CO), Fort Bragg, NC assigned 11 July 1954 to 19 July 1954 * HQ, CO, 3rd Battalion (BN), 504th Airborne (ABN), Infantry (IN) assigned 20 July 1954 to 28 October 1954 * Section 9 (Medals, Decorations, and Citations) – an entry for a National Defense Service Medal (NDSM) and is void of personal awards * Section 12 (Time Lost Under AW 107 and Subsequent to Normal Date of Expiration of Term of Service) – * absent without leave (AWOL) from 8 May 1954 to 13 May 1954 (6 days) * AWOL from 5 August 1954 to 16 August 1954 (12 days) * Section 13 (Record of Trials by Courts Martial) – * Summary Court Martial (SCM) Number 115, 504tth ABN IN, Uniform Code Military Justice, Article 86 (AWOL) * AWOL from on or about (o/a) 5 August to o/a 17 August 1954 * sentenced to perform hard labor (H/L) for 30 days and to forfeit 55 dollars * unexecuted portion of H/L suspended per Special Orders 221, HQ 504th (AIR), dated 27 October 1954 * Section 14 (Remarks) – from 20 July 1954 to 28 October 1954 his character was good and efficiency level was unsatisfactory – "not favorably considered for good conduct medal" * Section 17 (Indorsements) – he was favorably considered for good conduct medal and his character/efficiency ratings were excellent during his Basic Training and Advanced Individual Training service period 6. The applicant's military record is void of evidence which shows he received counseling, disciplinary action or was recommended for non-judicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for his AWOL period from 8 May 1954 to 13 May 1954. 7. The applicant provides a Standard Form 502 (Narrative Summary, which states, on 15 July 1954, the applicant was admitted to the U.S. Army Hospital, Fort Bragg, NC as a direct admission at age 19 after six months of active duty service. He stated, in effect, "I am tired and sick and everything else." He provided that he had cut his wrist and no one understood how cruel it was to keep him in the Army and all psychiatrists think they are "Christ." His contention was that he had to do "this" to "do something big" to convince everybody how he feels and how cruel it is to him. a. This form also provides information about his history prior to his induction into the Army, which led to his diagnosis of: * emotional instability reaction – chronic/moderate manifested by immature emotional responses * low frustration tolerance * narcissism * attempt at self-injury and poor motivation for continued military duty * LOD NO and EPTE b. He was initially admitted to a closed ward and later moved to and open ward section on 20 July 1954. He felt the Army was not good for him and he should be discharged. After a conference with the chief of service it was decided he did not show evidence of either psychosis or severe depression. There was no mental illness that incapacitated him from duty and he could be returned to a full duty status. 8. On 9 September 1954, the applicant was admitted to the Division Clearing Station [Hospital] for common cold symptoms and depression. It was noted that he threatened suicide in a letter to his family. He was released from the hospital on 24 September 1954 after it his conditions were deemed to not be amenable for hospitalization. He was recommended for disciplinary action, training, transfer to a different unit/organization, or reclassification for another duty [MOS]. * he was not insane and possessed the ability to know right from wrong * he was recommended for full duty status and to await his commands decision pursuant to Army Regulation 615 – 369 9. On 6 October 1954, the applicant was charged with the violation of being AWOL on or about 5 August 1954 and did remain so until on or about 17 August 1954. His plea and the findings for the specifications and charges was guilty. 10. On 12 October 1954, the applicant's commander formally recommended him for discharge from the Army pursuant to Army Regulation 615 – 369 (Enlisted Personnel – Discharge – Inaptitude or Unsuitability) by reason of lack of adaptability. The personnel action included eight enclosures. * supplemental data * report of psychiatric examination * certificate of no previous convictions * affidavit of Sergeant "S" * affidavit of Corporal "A" * certificate by "WHD" * out-patient index * letter, regimental surgeon 11. On 22 October 1954, the applicant acknowledged notification of his requirement to appear before a board of officers, on 25 October 1954, to be convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 615 – 369 to determine whether he should be separated from service prior to his expiration of term of service (ETS). 12. On 25 October 1954, a board of officers found the applicant unsuitable for further service because of character and behavior disorders. The Board recommended discharge from service because of unsuitability with the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. The appropriate authorized official for the separation authority approved the recommendation, on 28 October 1954. 13. On 5 November 1954, the applicant was discharged from active duty. He received a General Discharge (Under Honorable Conditions) and completed 0 years, 9 months, and 5 days of active duty service. 14. On 1 April 2019, the Case Management Division (CMD) provided the applicant a letter requesting medical document to support his medical condition for his Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) request for consideration of his application. There was not a reply to the CMD request for supporting documents. 15. On 12 February 2020, an advisory opinion was received from an ABRA Psychologist. A review of applicant’s hardcopy military and medical records indicate: a. The applicant was admitted to the hospital for psychiatric care because he cut his wrist on 15 July 1954. He was very distressed about not doing well in the Army and was diagnosed with Passive Dependency Reaction. He was discharged with no duty limitations, on 3 August 1954. b. His treating psychiatrist, completed a psychiatric report for the command, on 24 September 1954, and diagnosed him with “Emotional Instability Reaction manifested by immature emotional responses and low frustration tolerance.” The advisory shows: * he was readmitted to the hospital, * he meet retention standards c. In accordance with the Secretary of Defense Liberal Guidance Memorandum, dated 3 September 2014, and the Clarifying Guidance, dated 25 August 2017, the applicant had a behavioral health condition at the time of his discharge primarily related to his inability to adjust to military life. 16. Army Regulation 615-369 (Enlisted Personnel – Discharge – Inaptitude or Unsuitability), in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for inaptitude or unsuitability, and stated Soldiers discharged under these provisions would receive a General Discharge Certificate. 17. Army Regulation 615-369 (Enlisted Personnel – Discharge – Inaptitude or Unsuitability), published on 27 October 1948 in effect at the time of the applicant's separation, was superseded by the following regulations: * Army Regulation 635-208 (Undesirable Habits and Traits of Character), published on 21 May 1956 * Army Regulation 635-212 (Unfitness and Unsuitability), published on 15 July 1966 * Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) 18. Army Regulation 635-200 was revised on 1 December 1976, following settlement of a civil suit. Thereafter, the type of discharge and the character of service were to be determined solely by the individual's military record during the current enlistment. Further, any separation for unsuitability based on personality disorder must include a diagnosis of a personality disorder made by a physician trained in psychiatry. a. In connection with the changes to Army Regulation 635-200, a Department of the Army Memorandum dated 14 January 1977, and better known as the Brotzman Memorandum, was promulgated. It required retroactive application of revised policies, attitudes and changes in reviewing applications for an upgrade of discharges based on personality disorders. b. A second memorandum, dated 8 February 1978, and better known as the Nelson Memorandum, expanded the review policy and specified that the presence of a personality disorder diagnosis would justify an upgrade of a discharge to fully honorable except in cases where there are "clear and demonstrable reasons" why a fully honorable discharge should not be given. Conviction by general court-martial or by more than one special court-martial were determined to be "clear and demonstrable reasons" which would justify a less than fully honorable discharge. BOARD DISCUSSION: The Board noted that in accordance with the Secretary of Defense Liberal Guidance Memorandum, dated 3 September 2014, and the Clarifying Guidance, dated 25 August 2017, the applicant had a behavioral health condition at the time of his discharge primarily related to his inability to adjust to military life. After reviewing the application, the supporting documents, the records, applicable regulations, and the facts above, the Board found that relief is warranted as recommended in the Board Determination and Recommendation below. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 :X :X :X GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing that he was discharged on 5 November 1954 with an honorable discharge and provide him an honorable discharge certificate. 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. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 3. Army Regulation 615-369 (Enlisted Personnel – Discharge – Inaptitude or Unsuitability), published on 27 October 1948, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for inaptitude or unsuitability. The regulation also provided that discharge for unsuitability would be effected when it was determined that an individual had demonstrated maladaptability for further military service for the following reasons: (1) character and behavior disorder; (2) mental deficiency; and (3) enuresis. This regulation provided the following additional guidance for unsuitability: a. Discharge for unsuitability will be effected when it is determined that an individual is unsuitable for further military service because of any of the following reasons: lack of stamina, character or behavior disorders, mental deficiency, apathy, nonpersistent but temporarily disruptive reactions to acute or special stress, enuresis. b. Care will be taken to differentiate between the individual who is definitely psychologically maladjusted and therefore manifests reactions and conditions as indicated above and one who manifests unfitness. Care will be taken also to determine the question of responsibility of the individual for his acts; doubtful cases will be referred to a board of officers. c. It is generally accepted medical and psychiatric opinion that enuresis is not necessarily a habit. It may be a symptom of some underlying mental or physical condition. Underlying causes or enuresis may be an organic disease, psychoneurosis, psychosis, psychopathic personality, lack of proper juvenile training, or mental deficiency. In each case a complete mental and physical evaluation of the person afflicted will be accomplished by qualified medical officers, and a decision made as to disposition. d. For DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States), item 8 (Reason and Authority for Separation) enter "Paragraph 2, AR 615-369," or "Paragraph 3, AR 615-369," as appropriate. e. An individual discharged for inaptitude or unsuitability will be furnished DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate). 4. Army Regulation 615-369 (Enlisted Personnel – Discharge – Inaptitude or Unsuitability), published on 27 October 1948, in effect at the time of the applicant's separation, was superseded by the following regulations: * Army Regulation 635-208 (Undesirable Habits and Traits of Character), published on 21 May 1956 * Army Regulation 635-212 (Unfitness and Unsuitability), published on 15 July 1966 * Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) 5. Army Regulation 635-200 was revised on 1 December 1976, following settlement of a civil suit. Thereafter, the type of discharge and the character of service were to be determined solely by the individual's military record during the current enlistment. Further, any separation for unsuitability based on personality disorder must include a diagnosis of a personality disorder made by a physician trained in psychiatry. a. In connection with the changes to Army Regulation 635-200, a Department of the Army Memorandum dated 14 January 1977, and better known as the Brotzman Memorandum, was promulgated. It required retroactive application of revised policies, attitudes and changes in reviewing applications for an upgrade of discharges based on personality disorders. b. A second memorandum, dated 8 February 1978, and better known as the Nelson Memorandum, expanded the review policy and specified that the presence of a personality disorder diagnosis would justify an upgrade of a discharge to fully honorable except in cases where there are "clear and demonstrable reasons" why a fully honorable discharge should not be given. Conviction by general court-martial or by more than one special court-martial were determined to be "clear and demonstrable reasons" which would justify a less than fully honorable discharge. 6. Army Regulation 635-200, currently in effect, sets forth the policy and prescribes the procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’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. When a Soldier is discharged before expiration – term of service (ETS) for a reason for which an honorable discharge is discretionary, the following considerations apply: (1) Where there have been infractions of discipline, the extent thereof should be considered, as well as the seriousness of the offense(s). (2) A Soldier will not necessarily be denied an honorable discharge solely by reason of the number of convictions by court-martial or actions under the UCMJ Art 15. Conviction by a general court-martial or by more than one special court martial does not automatically rule out the possibility of awarding an honorable discharge. b. Paragraph 3-7b provides that 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. 8. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records on 25 July 2018, regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records may grant clemency regardless of the court-martial forum. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. a. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, Boards shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. b. Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170001008 10 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1