Blue discharge
Bill by the Veterans Administration and had difficulty finding work because employers were aware of the negative connotations of a blue discharge.
However, with the mobilization of troops following the United States' entry into World War II, it became impractical to convene court-martial boards of commissioned officers, and some commanders began issuing administrative discharges instead.
[5] The psychiatrists responsible for creating and implementing screening procedures to exclude homosexuals from military service[6] initially supported blue discharges.
[7] One press account said the purpose of administrative blue discharges, "discharges which are not dishonorable but are based on habits or traits of the individual that make his continuation in service undesirable", was the need to return soldiers to civilian life as quickly as possible: "to get the non-disabled soldier back into the nation's economic life with as little delay and red tape as possible, and to help him solve his own personal problems such as unemployment, educational opportunities, or finances.
In discussions about the legislation's details, the American Legion insisted on a specific provision to provide benefits to veterans discharged under any circumstance other than dishonorable.
[15] The Legion believed a large number of veterans had been given blue and other less-than-honorable discharges for reasons that it considered unreasonable or trivial.
[16] In testimony before the United States Senate, Rear Admiral Randall Jacobs strongly opposed this provision on the grounds that it would undermine morale and remove any incentive to maintain a good service record.
Senator Bennett Champ Clark, a sponsor of the bill, dismissed his concerns, calling them "some of the most stupid, short-sighted objections which could be raised".
[19] In October 1945, Black-interest newspaper The Pittsburgh Courier launched an investigation against the discharge and its abuses, calling the discharge "a vicious instrument that should not be perpetrated against the American Soldier", and rebuked the Army for "allowing prejudiced officers to use it as a means of punishing Negro soldiers who do not like specifically unbearable conditions".
On October 29, 1945, noting that a blue discharge meant the veteran had not been convicted and yet had been separated from the military without being able to defend himself, he said: "There ought not to be a twilight zone between innocence and guilt.
The committee, headed by Rep. Carl T. Durham (D-NC), issued its report officially called "Investigations of the National War Effort", commonly known as "Blue Discharges", on January 30, 1946.
[22] The committee expressed its amazement that anyone with a blue discharge would risk further stigmatization by speaking out against the discrimination:[22] It should be borne in mind that even a moderate amount of complaint in a matter of this sort is significant.
For a person to make such a complaint in his own case implies that he feels a sense of injustice so great that he is willing to risk publicizing the stigma of having been discharged from the Army under circumstances which savor of disgrace.
For each complainant there are many more who feel the same sense of injustice but prefer to bury their hurt in as much oblivion as possible.In examining case histories of blue-discharge veterans, the committee found that "the procedure lends itself to dismissals based on prejudice and antagonism".
