IN THE CASE OF:  

BOARD DATE:  12 March 2020

DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20190009650


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  An upgrade of his undesirable discharge to fully honorable.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States)
*	Personal Statement

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 (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 his physical health is getting worst and he wants his discharge 
upgraded so that he can be buried with honors.  In June 1954, he was asked to perform 
duties that he was unable to perform due to “MUA,” which happened while he was going 
from Colorado Springs to Camp Hale, CO.  He served when there were many areas of 
prejudice.  Many people that he served with are deceased.  He requests that his case 
be expedited due to his age.

3.  In a personal statement the applicant indicates he received a letter from the [ABCMR 
staff] requesting his service number and a copy of his DD Form 214, which he provided.

4.  The applicant was inducted into the Army and entered active duty in Columbia. SC, 
on 11 June 1953.  He attended the Quarter Master course for 8 weeks from September 
to November 1953. 

5.  Two corrected medical cards, show on 22 June 1954, at Camp Hale, CO, while in 
transit from Fort Carson CO, the applicant was riding as a passenger in a government 
truck when the truck over turned and he received a contusion, right “trapexius muscle.”  
Specialized Treatment:  Orthopedic Surgery.  His injury was determined to be in the line 
of duty.


6.  On 9 September 1954, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation, at 
Psychiatry and Neurology, Fort Carson, CO, due to a request by his chain of command.  

     a.  His diagnosis was passive-aggressive reaction, chronic, moderate, manifested by 
discontent with present assignment, poor motivation for duty; prolongation and 
exaggeration of symptoms following a relatively minor shoulder injury with exploitation 
of symptoms in order to shirk duties and obtain a change in assignment and multiple 
hospitalizations; predisposition, marked, long preservice history of similar behavior, 
stress, moderate, minor shoulder injury at Camp Hale on 22 June 1954; impairment for 
military duty, severe; impairment for civilian life; mild; existed prior to service (EPTS); 
Line of Duty:  No/(EPTS)

     b.  The Chief of Psychiatry and Neurology recommended that the applicant be 
separated from service under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 615-368 (Enlisted 
Men - Discharge - Unfitness (Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character)), because of 
unfitness and shirking of duties. 

7.  The applicant was provided a certificate, dated 9 September 1954, to certify that he 
had been hospitalized and evaluated by the Psychiatry and Neurology Section, U.S. 
Army Hospital, Fort Carson on three different occasions since 25 June 1954 and the 
following findings were made.  Patient History:

     a.  The applicant was 21 years of age and this was his third admission since 25 June 
1954, because of persistent right shoulder pain incapacitating him for duty.  On his 
previous admission, he was thoroughly evaluated from the orthopedic, neurologic, and 
psychiatric standpoints in relation to this pain and it was concluded, despite the 
diagnosis by one observer of residual mild myositis that the degree of disability claimed 
by the applicant was far beyond that which could be expected from the physical 
findings.  The pain was a result of a mild injury to his right shoulder in a truck accident at 
Camp Hale on 22 June 1954.  X-rays of the neck and right should were negative.  He 
received medication but always at the cessation of treatment very little improvement 
was acknowledged.

     b.  On his previous hospitalization despite complaints of pain in the shoulder are with 
constant limitation of motion, it was noted by many observers that the applicant utilized 
this arm in full range of motion both on the ward duties and in Red Cross activities, 
particularly playing pool.  Despite this, he would often refuse to participate in the 
physical rehabilitation progress because of alleged pain in his shoulder and legs.

    c.  He alleged to various technicians and the ward doctor that he greatly disliked his 
duties at Camp Hale and felt that he should likely go absent without leave (AWOL) if he 
were returned there.  He also threatened that he would soon be back in the hospital.

     d.  Upon his discharge from the hospital on 18 August 1954, the applicant was told 
the nature of his complaint did not justify either a change in station nor duties and he 
was admonished that future excessive riding of sick call and attempts to manipulate his 
commanding officer, the dispensary physicians, the chaplains, and the Red Cross would 
result in recommendation of disciplinary handling.  Despite this immediately upon 
discharge, he contacted the Red Cross at this hospital attempting to obtain a 
compassionate transfer from Camp Hale because of alleged social contacts in this 
vicinity and since his return to duty he had apparently continued to harass various 
individuals at Camp Hale with complaints; this leading to his present hospitalization.  His 
complaint consisted of pain and tenderness in the right suprascapular area, but on 
readmission this time he complained of radiation of the pain from that area to the chest, 
suggesting an intercostal neuritis.  When referred to orthopedics for a diagnostic nerve 
block with procaine needle, he repulsed alleging that type of pain had disappeared.

     e.  Mental status evaluation and psychological testing gave no evidence of psychotic 
disorder or neurotic tendencies suggestive of hysteria.  Although his test results 
statistically placed him at a defective level of intelligence, it was obvious that his lack of 
interest and effort in testing over shadowed a functioning in the dull normal range of 
intelligence.  The passively hostile, oppositional negativist ego-centered behavior was 
reactive of a passive-aggressive personality.

     f.  Findings-were he possessed sufficient capacity in distinguishing right from wrong 
and to refrain from wrong, and he was considered to be mentally responsible.

     g.  His condition was not amenable to hospitalization, treatment, disciplinary action, 
training, transfer to another station, an operation, or reclassification.

     h.  The same diagnosis as paragraph 4a above.

i.	 Recommendation is the same as 4b above.

8.  The applicant's immediate commander requested a board of officers be convened 
under the provisions of AR 615-368 (Enlisted Men - Discharge - Unfitness (Undesirable 
Habits or Traits of Character)) for the purpose of determining the applicant's fitness due 
to shirking of his duties.

9.  On 5 October 1954, the applicant was directed to appear before a board of officers 
to determine whether he should be separated from the Army for unfitness.  The 
applicant’s acknowledgment is not available, but he appeared before the board.  

10. On 6 October 1954, a board of officers convened in the Camp Hale S-2, 3 Office, for 
the purpose of determining the applicant's suitability for retention.  The board found that 
the applicant's record revealed evidence of traits of character which rendered his 
retention in the service undesirable, namely, his complaints were unfounded and were 
made with the intent of avoiding service.  The board recommended the applicant's 
discharge from the Army under the provisions of AR 615-368 for unfitness with the 
issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 

11.  On 5 November 1954, the convening authority approved the board's findings and 
recommendation.  

12.  On 18 November 1954, a medical evaluation determined the applicant was 
qualified for separation.

13.  On 19 November 1954, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of 
AR 615-368, due to unfitness, traits of character rendering retention in service 
undesirable.  His DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 year, 5 months, and 9 days of 
creditable active service.  He was awarded the National Defense Service Medal.

14.  On 5 July 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board advised the applicant that his 
discharge had been reviewed and it was determined that his discharge was proper and 
equitable.  Accordingly, his request was denied. 

15.  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 had demonstrated their unfitness by giving evidence of habits and traits 
of character manifested by misconduct.  Such as the applicant’s unfounded complaints 
which were made with the intent of avoiding service.  An undesirable discharge was 
normally considered appropriate. 

16.  AR 615-368, also stated that a board of officers would recommend the individual 
either be discharged because of unfitness or unsuitability, or retained in the service.  

17.  The applicant contends that his physical health is getting worst and he wants his 
discharge upgraded so that he can be buried with honors.  In June 1954, he was asked 
to perform duties that he was unable to perform.  He served when there was much 
prejudice.  He also requests that his case be expedited due to his age.

18.  Regarding the applicant’s contention that he was unable to perform the duties he 
was asked to perform.  

     a.  The applicant was hospitalized on three separate occasions and underwent 
various treatment and tests for a minor shoulder injury.  He was diagnosed with:

*	passive-aggressive reaction, chronic, moderate, manifested by discontent 
with present assignment, and poor motivation for duty
*	an exploitation of symptoms in order to shirk duties and obtain a change in 
assignments

     b.  His immediate commander requested a board of officers be convened under the 
provisions of AR 615-368 to determine his fitness for continued service.

     c.  The board found the applicant's record revealed evidence of traits of character 
which rendered his retention in the service undesirable.  The complaints about his minor 
shoulder injury were determined to be unfounded and were made with the intent of 
avoiding service.  The board recommended the applicant's discharge, due unfitness 
with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The convening authority 
approved the board's findings and recommendation, and the applicant was accordingly 
discharged.  

19.  He completed 1 year, 5 months, and 9 days of his 2 service obligation.  In reaching 
its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, his service record, his 
claim of prejudice, his request to expedite his request due to his age, and his 
statements in light of the published guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency.  

BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, 
evidence in the records and published DoD guidance for consideration of discharge 
upgrade requests.  The Board considered the applicant’s statement, his record and 
length of service, the frequency and nature of his unacceptable behaviors, the physical 
and mental evaluations and the reason for his separation.  The Board found insufficient 
evidence of in-service mitigation to overcome the misconduct and the applicant 
provided no evidence of post-service achievements or letters of reference in support of 
a clemency determination.  Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board 
determined that the character of service the applicant received upon separation was not 
in error or unjust.

2.  After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that 
relief was not warranted.
 



BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:XXX	:XX	:XXX	DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or 
injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient 
as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



 

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):  NA

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.  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 had 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, homosexuality, sexual perversion, or misconduct.  An 
undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. 

3.  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. 

4.  AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) governs the separation of 
enlisted personnel.  

	a.  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.  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.  
5.  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 type of court-martial. 
However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-
martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may 
be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice.

     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, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, 
sworn testimony (to include that provided by an applicant), 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)	 AR20190009650
5

ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20190009650


7
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20190009650


6