ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 23 May 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190003834 APPLICANT REQUESTS: through Counsel, upgrade of his discharge to honorable and personal appearance before the Board. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Counsel’s brief * WD AGO Form 53-56 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation Discharge from the Army of the United States) * Headquarters, Third Service Command memorandum, dated 3 July 1943 * Regional Hospital, Camp Barkeley, TX, Physical Therapy note, dated 9 November 1944 * Medical Department Special Schools, U.S. Army Certificate, dated 7 February 1945 * untitled document, claimed as Marriage Record Log, 2 February 1945 * Neurological Clinic medical note, dated 17 May 1945 * partial WD AGO Form 38 (Report of Physical Examination of Enlisted Personnel Prior to Discharge, Release from Active Duty, or Retirement), dated 15 October 1945 * WD AGO Form 8-24 (Register Card), dated 23 July 1945 * Medical Training Battalion examination note, dated 12 May 1945 * medical note, dated 12 April 1945 * Headquarters, Army Service Forces Training Center memorandum, dated 20 July 1945 * War Department letter, dated 27 August 1946 * War Department letter, dated 26 September 1947 * Department of Veterans Administration (VA) letter, dated 2 July 1948 * VA letter, dated 5 May 1948 * VA letter, dated 7 April 1948 * multiple Yellow Cab Company of Philadelphia certificates * Temple University Bachelor of Arts Certificate, dated 26 May 1969 * Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Certificate of Attainment, dated 28 May 1970 * Interested Negroes Incorporated, Certificate of Appreciation, dated 1971 * Mu Omega Chapter Omega Psi Phi Fraternity Veterans Day pamphlet, dated 12 November 2016 * Pennsylvania State Police Response for Criminal Record Check, dated 12 September 2018 * House Report Number 1510, Investigations of the National War Effort, Committee on Military Affairs, House of Representatives Report, dated 30 January 1946 * two letters of support * article by Melanie Burney, dated 3 May 2019, titled, “WWII vet wants Army to upgrade discriminatory discharge to “honorable,” nearly 75 years after expelling him” FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records 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’s complete military service record is not available to the Board for review. A request was made of the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) to obtain the applicant’s service record, but only a portion of his reconstructed records were available. A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members’ records at the NPRC in 1973 and his records were potentially affected by the fire. His case is being considered using the evidence he provided and his partially reconstructed file from the NPRC. 3. Counsel states: a. The applicant should be issued a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) showing his character of service as honorable. He received a “blue discharge” under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Men – Discharge – Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character), which is an injustice because a “blue discharge” no longer exists in accordance with current procedural rules and it is in error because his discharge was not done in accordance with the procedural rules in effect at the time. Additionally, the applicant’s post-service civilian conduct outweighs any alleged military misconduct and the U.S. Congress determined that “blue discharges” should be upgraded to honorable. b. The applicant is now 95 years old and was discharged in October 1945 with a WD AGO Form 53-56, or “blue discharge”, which was considered neither honorable nor dishonorable. At the present date, it is recognized that a “blue discharge” is in fact a less than honorable discharge and was used to discriminate against African American military personnel such as the applicant. c. The historical development of the “blue discharge” is detailed in Christine Knauer’s book, Let Us Fight as Free Men: Black Soldiers and Civil Rights, and summarized in part below. Prior to the creation of the “blue discharges” in 1916, the military classified less than honorable discharges as “Without Honor” and “Unclassified.” Both of these discharges were eliminated with the creation of the “blue discharge.” Although this discharge is classified as neither dishonorable nor honorable, it received negative connotations in the general public as being undesirable. Honorable discharges were printed on white paper, dishonorable discharges were printed on yellow paper, and the “blue discharges” were so named because they were printed on blue paper. Soldiers who were give “blue discharges” had difficulty finding employment and were not eligible for most benefits, including the GI Bill managed by the VA. d. Veterans that received “blue discharges” faced employment discrimination as most employers required job applicants to present discharge papers if they had served in the military and were routinely unfairly denied positions despite not having a dishonorable discharge. Likewise, the GI Bill, created in 1944 clearly stated that benefits should not be denied unless the service member received a dishonorable discharge, but those receiving a “blue discharge” were routinely denied the use of the GI Bill as it was treated as a dishonorable discharge. e. Blue discharges were disproportionately issued to African Americans and homosexuals. African Americans were issued 22.23 percent of all “blue discharges” from 1 December 1941 through 30 June 1945, despite making up only 6.5 percent of the Army. f. Due to the mounting criticism of the “blue discharge” by the public and Government authorities, the U.S. Congress investigated the matter and issued a report in 1946. In that report, it was recommended to remove the “blue discharge” classification and that procedures be created to automatically review “all blue discharges issued…for the purpose of restoring such discharges to the status of honorable discharges in all cases where the records admit of any doubt, the Solider is to be given the advantage of the doubt.” However, this recommendation was never implemented because shortly after the Congressional report was released, the Department of Defense replaced the “blue discharge” in 1947 with two other discharge types, the general discharge and the undesirable discharge. g. The applicant initially enlisted in the Army to reach his dream of graduating with a doctorate degree in dental studies. In 1942, Jim Crow laws were still in effect ant the segregated Army still existed. He was classified as an inactive member of the Enlisted Reserve Corps so he could meet his minimum pre-professional requirements for his future matriculation at a Class A medical school. He entered the service hopeful and excited to work toward his future as he had already secured an offer of admission to the Howard University Dental School, which was dependent upon him meeting the pre-matriculation requirements. Then a junior in college and Vice President of his class, he played football for 3 years in college and injured his knee, but was still able to enlist into a Specialized Training and Reassignment (STAR) unit with the Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP) to begin training and complete his educational requirements for dentistry school. h. On 17 June 1943, he started his training at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, where he was informed he was being moved to a STAR unit at Grinnell College in Iowa, where he would receive training before being reassigned to a different STAR unit to meet his requirements for the ASTP. After receiving treatment for pneumonia, he went on to receive additional training at Grinnell College and eventually was given orders to go to Cornell University. i. At Cornell University, he lived in a fraternity house with three other African American Soldiers and attended both classes and physical training. During physical training, his prior knee injury from college was aggravated and he was informed that he needed surgery on his knee because he had torn the medial meniscus. He never had the surgery done because he wanted to finish the semester at Cornell first, which ended on 2 September 1944. During his time at Cornell University and before his semester ended, his STAR unit was disbanded and they were all sent off to regular units due to the increased need for replacement troops during World War II. j. He was then reassigned to the medic department at Camp Barkley, TX, which was a segregated combat unit and completed a 12-week Dental Technician Course at William Beaumont General Hospital in El Paso, TX. He began to experience migraine headaches while there and also faced discrimination from Sergeant (SGT) W____ W____, that inevitably ended with his eventual discharge. k. While at Camp Barkley, he faced his first summary court-martial over what he claims is a disputed issue. The applicant was on fire guard duty one night, where he was in charge of seeing that the fire did not go out. SGT W____ W____ accused him of not tending to the fire and letting it die out. The charge against the applicant was disputed by the next Soldier in charge of the fire pit, who stated he was certain the fire was alive when he took over the fire guard duty. Despite the testimony of the other Soldier, the applicant was punished. l. After completing basic combat training, all Soldiers went on a 25-mile hike and a 3-day survival experience to ensure all Soldiers were ready for their overseas duty and he further injured his knee while completing the 25-mile hike. After the completion of the 25-mile hike, the Soldiers were given a 15-day leave before they were required to come back to the camp. During the leave, he spent most of the time convincing his girlfriend to marry him and they did finally marry on the final day of leave on 19 February 1945. After the marriage ceremony, the applicant asked for an additional day of leave through the American Red Cross, which was denied. Despite the denial, he stayed with his new wife for an additional day. When he arrived back at camp, he had to meet with the company commander, who decided not to court-martial him for his 1-day absence and congratulated him on his marriage. This infuriated SGT X____ X____. m. Since he had completed basic combat training and survival training, it was time for him to undergo a physical examination before being shipped overseas. When the medic asked him to bend his knees, squat, and come back up while wearing a full field pack, he was unable to do so and was disqualified for overseas duty. This further frustrated several individuals, including SGT X____ X____, who began to heighten his focus on him and pursue him for every small incident. He also continued to suffer from knee injuries and worsening headaches and after each medical treatment SGT W____ X____ would harass him and argue he had an attitude issue. n. SGT X___ X____ had been a professional baseball player for the Indianapolis Clowns, in the Negro League and let the applicant borrow his baseball glove after hearing he played baseball in high school. After the applicant tried to give him back the glove, SGT X____ X____ refused to accept it and told the applicant to keep it in his foot locker. The applicant followed the order to put the glove in his foot locker and subsequently SGT X___ X___ accused him of stealing it and the applicant was tried by court-martial for stealing the baseball glove. This is the second time he was tried by court-martial based on a disputed issue with SGT X____ X___. o. Sometime later he was instructed to dig a 6 by 6 foot hole during a training exercise, which he was unable to do because of his knee injury. He was then punished for this supposed infraction despite having a medical reason for his inability to dig the hole. Later the applicant and another Soldier, who had also been exempted from physical training, had requested and received permission from the leader of the physical training program to be allowed to go to the field house and play musical instruments. Due to confusion over which commands to follow, SGT X____ X____ again accused the applicant of disobeying a direct order, and since this was the third documented offense, he was sent to the stockade for 30 days. p. While in the stockade, the applicant wrote a letter to the Army Inspector General in Washington, D.C., asking that he be exempt from physical activity during his time in the stockade due to his knee injury. After his letter was received and the Inspector General visited the camp, he was told he did not have to work for the rest of the time he had to spend in the stockade. He only had to complete 25 days due to good behavior. q. After his time in the stockade, the applicant returned to his company which had already left for overseas duty. As a result, he was kept in a holding company and was approached by the Sergeant of that company (with whom it was rumored he also had issues), and informed him that his request for discharge had been denied. He was also informed he was “under arrest in quarters.” He did not understand what that meant and he had not applied for a discharge, so he was not aware of what was occurring. He was kept in his quarters for several days before being informed that his discharge had gone through, but it was a “blue discharge.” The applicant was told he would need to go to town to get civilian clothes since he was not allowed to wear his uniform home. He did not agree with the discharge because, even at the time, he knew it was an undesirable discharge that had severe negative connotations and was frequently given to homosexuals. r. On 17 October 1945, he was told to sign the discharge papers and accept the terms of the discharge, otherwise more problems would occur and he would be facing more trouble. He was told he would have to take up any issues he had with his discharge with the Discharge Review Board that was recently established. He was informed he could fix the discharge later, but would have to accept it at the present time. s. He first attempted to resolve his discharge through the Discharge Review Board with the help of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and reached out to members of Congress for assistance in acquiring a hearing date for his discharge. The Discharge Review Board held a hearing on 21 August 1946 and stated the appropriate action had been taken. The Board they would not upgrade his discharge or address the denial of his benefits. His subsequent request for a rehearing by the Discharge Review Board was denied on 26 September 1946. t. He was planning on returning to his school to finish working toward his dreams, but was given a notice that his GI Bill benefits were being discontinued on 31 March 1948. With the American Red Cross serving as his counsel, he appealed his denial of benefits to the VA on 19 May 1948. On 2 July 1948, the VA released their opinion denying him all rights to benefits. u. Due to the discontinuation of his GI Bill benefits, he had to find employment to take care of his wife and child. He started work as a cab driver and did not reenter college until 1964. He did not complete his degree until 1969, at the age of 46. Despite these setbacks, he became a very beloved member of his community. He eventually secured a position as the manager of a Pennsylvania state Employment Service office, from which he retired. He excelled at work and received numerous awards from 1950 through 1959 for excellent driving with no accidents. He raised three children in a happy household and continued working toward a brighter future for his family. He completed a study in Management Development I on 28 May 1970, as well as making time to volunteer and give back to his community, as evidenced by a Certificate of Appreciation given in 1971 by the Interested Negroes Incorporated. v. The applicant was married to his wife for over 70 years before she passed away in 2016 and they had been recognized as longstanding proud members of their community. Most recently, he was honored by his fraternity, Omega Psi Phi, as one of the oldest veterans in his local graduate chapter. He also has no history of criminal charges in Pennsylvania, either before or after his service. To this day, he has lived an honorable civilian life. w. The applicant’s case represents the thousands of disenfranchised veterans who were unable to avail themselves of the rewards that should have followed their years in the military. Notably, as an African American who enlisted during the existence of the segregated Army and saw first-hand the notable differences in treatment between the two, he was given the worst of the Army when his minor infractions ended with a harsh reality that would likely not have occurred but for racial discrimination. He served his country during a time when lynching was still a common occurrence. He faced the constant fear of being targeted in his home country, yet his desire to serve his country was rewarded with a less than desirable classification that hindered his quality of life and access to education. The sheer number of “blue discharges” that were given despite the low percentage of African Americans represents the overt discrimination inflicted upon thousands of African Americans and explains how disproportionate treatment toward even slight offenses can translate to a lower quality of life for many individuals. x. It would be inequitable to deny the applicant the right to certain benefits that are owed to other service members who did not face discrimination. The applicant was the target of an individual superior to him in rank, SGT X____ X___, whose actions were left unchecked by his superiors, eventually resulting in his undesired discharge from the service. Accordingly his discharge should be upgraded to honorable. y. There is substantial doubt that the applicant would have received the same discharge if relevant current policies and procedures had been available to him at the time of the discharge proceedings, thus he is entitled to have his discharge upgraded. The Army no longer issues “blue discharges” but issues a under other than honorable conditions discharge instead. z. Currently, Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 14 provides procedures for the separation of personnel for misconduct due to minor infractions or a pattern of misconduct. It states that attempts must have been made to rehabilitate or develop the individual into a satisfactory Soldier and that separation for misconduct is only allowed when it is determined that rehabilitation is impracticable or the individual Solider is not amenable to such. It further states a pattern of misconduct consists of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities, discreditable conduct and conduct against good order, such a violating personal conduct standards in regulation, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, civil law, and customs and traditions of the Army. aa. The applicant faced three court-martials, all of which were for disputed minor incidents without any real attempt to rehabilitate him or facilitate growth by his superiors. His superiors apparently treated his minor infractions as serious misconduct that demonstrated his lack of ability to adjust rather than their lack of willingness to provide the right leadership and guidance. Considering the totality of the three incidents, nothing suggest he would not have been amenable to training and rehabilitation, considering he made no outward show of disobedience or defiance and was instead targeted by a superior. At the very least, considering current procedures, there was a serious failure at an attempt to rehabilitate him. He would not have been given an under other than honorable conditions discharge under current procedural rules. bb. The Military Justice procedure Manual of 1945 was clear that punishment was the last resort and that such cases that require punishment were in the minority. Even though military authority is clear, the applicant was indeed punished for his alleged infractions by receiving a “blue discharge” after the unwarranted severe punishment of being confined to the grounds, confinement in the stockade, and more than one court-martial. Such trivial, disputed incidents did not require this severe punishment, were against the Military Justice Procedures of the time, and the applicant felt they were racially motivated. cc. The applicant’s outstanding post-service conduct may provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of his performance during his period of service for which the discharge is being reviewed. The applicant had planned to become a dentist before his enlistment into the Army, but ultimately what occurred was years of hard work as a taxi driver. Despite this hardship and economic setback caused by his unfair and incorrect discharge, he persevered throughout the years and eventually did become a college educated man despite never reaching his dreams of a life as a dentist. He received a management certificate that allowed him to obtain a higher paying job. He worked hard to provide for his family and give back to the community, as evidenced by his certificate for volunteer work from the Interested Negroes Incorporated in 1971. dd. Notably, none of his later conduct in the community provided any evidence of his “undesirable” habits or traits of character. He is a well-respected member of his fraternity and was recently honored as one of the oldest veterans to be a part of that fraternity. He was extremely dedicated and even went so far as to personally tutor a fellow “brother” in the fraternity and is considered an invaluable mentor in that individual’s life. He is now 95 years old and throughout his life has been an upstanding citizen and devoted husband and father. He served his country with honor and is entitled to have this injustice corrected during his life by upgrading his discharge to honorable. 4. A Physical Examination, dated 14 December 1942, done for the purpose of enlistment, shows he was physically fit for full military duty, despite the removal of his left testicle following a basketball injury. 5. The applicant’s WD AGO Form 22 (Enlistment Record – Army of the United States), shows he enlisted in the Enlisted Reserve Corps on 15 December 1942 in the rank/grade of private/E-1 while a college or university student. 6. His WD AGO Form 53-56 shows his date of entry into active service was 17 June 1943. 7. He provided a memorandum from Headquarters Third Service Command, dated 3 July 1943, which acknowledged that office received his letter stating he had been accepted at a Class A medical school and had not yet completed the minimum pre-professional requirements necessary for his matriculation. He was advised he would be carried in an inactive status as a member of the Enlisted Reserve Corps in order to permit him to complete the necessary course work. 8. A WD AGO Form 831 (Transcript of Academic Record – Army Specialized Training Program), dated 2 September 1944, shows the applicant was enrolled at Cornell University for two terms, from 13 March 1944 through 2 September 1944. It is unclear if the coursework reflected on this transcript represents the applicant’s required pre-professional courses necessary for his further matriculation in medical school and whether or not that requirement was indeed met through these courses. The course titles and his course grades for the two listed terms are available on the transcript for review. 9. A provided Regional Hospital, Camp Barkeley, TX, Physical Therapy Service note, dated 9 November 1944, shows he was diagnosed with chronic right knee strain and was to report daily for treatments. 10. An unnamed document, from an unknown source, provided by the applicant and listed by Counsel as “Exhibit 5, Marriage Record Log, 2 February 1945” contains the applicant’s name along with another surname in parenthesis, amongst a list of handwritten names under the column headed “1945”, ostensibly showing he married in the year 1945. 11. A Medical Department Special Schools U.S. Army Certificate, dated 7 February 1945, shows the applicant satisfactorily completed the 12-week Dental Technicians Course at the School for Medical Department Technicians, William Beaumont General Hospital. 12. A medical note, dated 12 April 1945, shows the applicant was examined by a Medical Corps Officer, Captain (CPT) X____ X____, regarding his chief complaint of left knee pain. It shows: * he stated to the medical provider writing the note that he injured his right knee in college football, after which he had swelling and locking of the right knee and subsequent hospitalization * examination of both knees at present revealed good quadriceps tone, no evidence of instability, swelling or tenderness other than tenderness over the anterior tendon of the medical meniscus of the right knee * X-rays of the left knee presented no significant evidence of bone or joint pathology * the impression was an unfitting right knee internal derangement for which he was given a physical profile excusing him from strenuous knee bending or twisting or walking over rough terrain 13. A medical note, dated 12 May 1945, shows the applicant was examined by a Medical Corps Officer, CPT X____ X____, at the request of his immediate commander, CPT X____. It shows: * the examination revealed no evidence of psychosis, no primary psychoneurosis, and no mental deficiency * the applicant knew the difference between right and wrong and was morally responsible for his actions * the neurological examination was negative * the examination revealed no disqualifying neurological/psychological findings * the applicant appeared to have a severe attitude problem and it was the examiner’s opinion that should be handled strictly on its administrative merits * the only suggestion the examiner had to make in an attempt to help the applicant adjust was that he be given light duties in keeping with the Orthopedic excuse dated 3 April 1945, until he was shipped in his military occupational specialty * the examiner also recommended X-ray pictures of his skull as the applicant complained of his head 14. In a medical note, dated 17 May 1945, CPT X____ X____, Medical Corps Officer, shows: * the applicant was examined by him and he complained of daily headaches * on 12 May 1945, a skull X-ray was done at his request at the Regional Hospital, which revealed “an incomplete linear fracture of the frontal bone in the mid-sagittal line – approximately 1 – 1/3 inches in length – and extending anteriorly from the coronal suture – no evidence of depression of the fragments” * the examiner requested the applicant be given a neurological examination to determine further pathology arising from the above and to determine if the headaches were to be explained on an organic basis 15. A Headquarters, Army Service Forces Training Center, Camp Crowder, MO memorandum, dated 20 July 1945, gave notice to the applicant of his directed appearance before a Board of Officers on 23 July 1945. It advised: * the Board would investigate the desirability of his reclassification or discharge * the witness who would be called were his company commander, CPT X____ X____ and First Sergeant X____ X____ (understood to be whom Counsel refers to as SGT X____ X___), of the 66th Medical Training Battalion * he was advised the Recorder of the Board would endeavor to arrange for the presence of any available witnesses he desired 16. The subsequent report of the Board of Officers, copies of the court-martial proceedings the applicant claims to have participated in, and any potential rehabilitative attempts are not in the applicant’s available records for review. Therefore, the complete facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge and the specific acts of misconduct or undesirable habits which led to his discharge are unknown and unavailable for review. 17. A WD AGO Form 8-24, dated 23 July 1945, shows examination at the Regional Hospital, Camp Crowder, MO. It further shows: * Item 10 (Source of Admission) lists “Carded for Record Only” * Item 11 (Cause of Admission, Additional Diagnoses, Operations, Change of Status) lists: 1. Ineffectual 2. Attitude problem 3. Derangement, internal, right knee and states “No Reconditioning” * Item 12 (Line of Duty) lists “No, Existed Prior to Service” for diagnoses 1-3 18. A WD AGO Form 38 (Report of Physical Examination of Enlisted Personnel Prior to Discharge, Release from Active Duty, or Retirement), dated 15 October 1945 shows: * he injured both knees prior to service while playing football * he received a right orchiectomy (surgical removal of a testicle), prior to military service * he fractured his skull prior to military service by falling down * he had an old fracture to his left ankle which occurred prior to military service when he slipped and fell * he frequently went to sick call * with regard to musculoskeletal defects, he complained of knew and recurrent locking of the right knee first in civilian life and twice in the Army * there were no objective findings or any evidence of service aggravation * he met physical and mental standards for discharge 19. A War Department form 372 (Final Payment – Work Sheet), dated 17 October 1945, shows his reason for discharge was Army Regulation 615-368 for habits and traits of character which render his retention in the service undesirable (Blue). 20. His WD AGO Form 53-56 shows he was discharged on 17 October 1945 under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 and the reason is listed as “Not Eligible for Reenlistment, Induction, or Reinduction” with 25 days lost. 21. Counsel provided a copy of House Report Number 1510, Investigations of the National War Effort, dated 30 January 1946, which dealt with “blue discharges” to enlisted Soldiers, commonly referred to as such because the WD AGO Form 53-56 was blue in color. The report delineates the shortcomings of “blue discharges” as they do not specify the character of service as either honorable or dishonorable and there is a potential for injustice in the issuance of these discharges. Among the report’s recommendations are the following: * institution of procedures to automatically review all “blue discharges” issued since the beginning of World War II * restoring the status of honorable discharge in all cases where the records admit any doubt, the benefit of the doubt will be given to the Soldier * proceedings of Boards of Officers convened under Army Regulation 615-368 be required to show that repeated attempts at rehabilitation have taken place * enlisted Soldiers required to appear before a Board of Officers be furnished counsel and copies of the Board proceedings upon request * adopting a classification of discharges with honorable discharge, discharge under honorable conditions, general discharge, and dishonorable discharge as the possible characteristics and doing away with the “blue discharge” 22. A letter from the War Department, Secretary of War’s Discharge Review Board, dated 27 August 1946, informed the applicant his appeal to the Secretary of War’s Discharge Review Board for an honorable discharge was denied on 21 August 1946. 23. A second letter from the War Department, Secretary of War’s Discharge Review Board, dated 26 September 1947, informed the applicant his request for an additional review of his discharge by the Secretary of War’s Discharge Review Board was received and denied. After careful consideration of the War Department records, including the prior findings and decisions in his case, it was determined the prior decisions were amply supported by the evidence. 24. A letter from the VA, dated 7 April 1948, states the applicant’s claim for education or training benefits under the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, as amended, was carefully considered on the basis of all of the evidence of record. It was determined he was not eligible for these benefits because of the nature and character of his discharge. 25. A letter from the VA, dated 5 May 1948, states his appeal was presently before the Board of Veterans Appeals pending appellate action and correspondence in his claim folder indicated his desire for a personal hearing before the Board. Therefore, a hearing was scheduled for Wednesday, 19 May 1948, at which time he may appear. His designated representative, the American Red Cross, was also advised of the hearing to enable them to be present to assist in the presentation of his claim. 26. A letter from the VA, dated 2 July 1948 states: a. The American Red Cross represented the applicant’s interests at the above referenced hearing. b. The Board of Veterans Appeals reviewed all evidence of record, including the reports from the Department of the Army and the report of the Board of Officers which convened for the purpose of determining whether he should be released from service. c. After careful consideration of the evidence of record, it was the determination of the Board that the circumstances leading up to and resulting in his release from the Army were of such a nature as to bar all rights to benefits under the provisions of the applicable laws and regulations and denied his appeal. 27. Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Men – Discharge – Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character), dated 7 March 1945, in effect at the time, provided procedures for the discharge of enlisted men for undesirable habits or traits of character. a. A report will be prepared for the commanding officer prior to the initiation of discharge per this regulation when an enlisted man gives evidence of: (1) habits or traits of character (except when discharge for physical or mental conditions is indicated) which serve to render his service undesirable and his rehabilitation is considered impossible after repeated attempts to accomplish the same have failed, or (2) a psychopathic personality manifested by antisocial or amoral trends, criminalism, chronic alcoholism, drug addiction, pathological lying, or sexual misconduct in the service and cannot be rehabilitated to render useful service. c. All persons discharged under the provisions of this regulation will be furnished a WD AGO Form 53-36 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation - Discharge from the Army of the United States (blue)). d. If the reviewing authority determines that an Honorable Discharge Certificate is to be furnished, the discharge will be effective under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-369 (Enlisted Men – Discharge – Inaptness, Lack of Required Degree of Adaptability or Enuresis). 28. The applicant provided numerous certificates from the Yellow Cab Company of Philadelphia, Temple University, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Interested Negroes Incorporated, and the Mu Omega Chapter, Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, which show, among other things, he received a Bachelor of Arts degree, was an excellent driver, devoted numerous hours to volunteer work, completed a Management Development course of study with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and was recognized by his fraternity for his Army service. 29. He provided a Pennsylvania State Police Response for Criminal Record Check, dated 12 September 2018, which shows the Pennsylvania State Police certified he did not have a criminal record. 30. He also provided two letters of support from friends who attest to the applicant’s good character and the amount of respect others have for him based on a lifetime of personal knowledge of him and his traits. They believe his discharge is a misrepresentation, does not reflect his good character, and ought to be upgraded to honorable. 31. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs 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. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined that there is sufficient evidence to grant relief. The board applied Office of the Secretary of Defense standards of liberal consideration and clemency to the complete evidentiary record, including the applicant’s statement, and found the statement, evidence of previous honorable service, and evidence of meritorious post-service accomplishments to be compelling in light of the fact that there was no evidence of misconduct, or evidence that the unit attempted to rehabilitate the applicant. The Board discussed that there was evidence that an injustice occurred, based on undue scrutiny of the applicant from his chain of command and that there may have been an environment of racial discrimination that led to the applicant’s discharge. Therefore, the Board found that the blue discharge certificate (neither honorable nor dishonorable) was inequitable and unjust. 2. The Board also discussed that the blue discharge certificate (WD AGO Form 53-56) is no longer issued or available. The Army currently uses the DD Form 214 to capture active service. 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 the evidence presented is 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 reissuing the applicant a DD Form 214 showing his characterization of service as honorable and the narrative reason as secretarial authority, with appropriate SPD and RE codes regarding the period of active service beginning 17 June 1943 and ending 17 October 1945 (with delayed entry beginning 15 December 1942.) 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. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): Not Applicable 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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records (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. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs 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. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide BCM/NRs in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs 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. 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. 3. Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Men – Discharge – Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character), dated 7 March 1945, in effect at the time, provided procedures for the discharge of enlisted men for undesirable habits or traits of character. a. A report will be prepared for the commanding officer prior to the initiation of discharge per this regulation when an enlisted man gives evidence of: (1) habits or traits of character (except when discharge for physical or mental conditions is indicated) which serve to render his service undesirable and his rehabilitation is considered impossible after repeated attempts to accomplish the same have failed, or (2) a psychopathic personality manifested by antisocial or amoral trends, criminalism, chronic alcoholism, drug addiction, pathological lying, or sexual misconduct in the service and cannot be rehabilitated to render useful service. b. Upon receipt of the required report, the commanding officer or the next higher commander, will convene a board of officers, three if practicable, one of whom will be a medical officer, to determine whether or not the enlisted man should be discharged prior to the expiration of his term of service. The proceedings of the board will be set forth on a WD AGO Form 37 (Report of Proceedings of Board of Officers). c. The reviewing authority will endorse on the board proceedings his approval of the action recommended or his determination as to the type of discharge certificate to be furnished, direct the discharge of the enlisted man concerned, and forward the proceedings to the officer who will execute the discharge when discharge is recommended. d. The term to be entered in the certificate of discharge as the reason for discharge will be “Army Regulation 615-368; not eligible for reenlistment, induction, or re-induction.” e. All persons discharged under the provisions of this regulation will be furnished a WD AGO Form 53-36 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation - Discharge from the Army of the United States (blue)). If the reviewing authority determines that an Honorable Discharge Certificate is to be furnished, the discharge will be effective under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-369 (Enlisted Men – Discharge – Inaptness, Lack of Required Degree of Adaptability or Enuresis), not under this regulation. 4. Army Regulation 615-369, dated 20 July 1944, in effect at the time, provided procedures for the discharge of enlisted men for inaptness, lack of required degree of adaptability, or enuresis (inability to control urination). a. A report will be prepared for the commanding officer prior to the initiation of discharge per this regulation when an enlisted man gives evidence of: (1) inaptness, or (2) not possessing the required degree of adaptability of the military service after reasonable attempts have been made to reclassify and reassign him in keeping with his abilities and qualifications, or (3) disqualification for service because of enuresis, which may be a symptom of some underlying mental or physical condition, including the following: * organic disease * psychoneurosis * psychosis * mental deficiency * psychopathic personality * lack of proper juvenile training b. All persons discharged under the provisions of this regulation will be furnished a WD AGO Form 55 (Honorable Discharge from the Army of the United States) and the discharge certificate will show that reenlistment, induction, or re-induction is not warranted. 5. Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Men – Discharge – Unfitness), as updated on dated 27 October 1948, provided procedures for the discharge of enlisted men for unfitness. It removes the reference to the “blue discharge” and expounds upon what is considered “unfitness” in lieu of “undesirable habits or traits of character”. It states: a. A report will be prepared for the commanding officer prior to the initiation of discharge and after rehabilitation is considered impossible after repeated attempts to have failed, when an enlisted Soldier gives evidence of: (1) traits of character manifested by antisocial or amoral trend, chronic alcoholism, criminalism, drug addiction, pathological lying, homosexuality, sexual perversion, or misconduct (2) unclean habits, including repeated venereal infections (3) repeatedly committing petty offenses not warranting trial by court-martial (4) habitual shirker (5) a board of medical examiners recommends discharge not because of a physical or mental disability but because of a psychopathic (antisocial) personality disorder, or the board determined he has “no disease” and his record reveals frequent disciplinary infractions with unfounded complaints intended to avoid service b. All persons discharged under the provisions of this regulation will be furnished a WD AGO Form 53-58 (Undesirable Discharge). 6. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record. 7. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20190003834 17 1