Blue discharge facts for kids
A blue discharge was a special type of military discharge used by the United States armed forces starting in 1916. It was not considered a good discharge (honorable) or a bad one (dishonorable). Instead, it was somewhere in the middle. Commanders often used blue discharges to remove service members who were seen as different or didn't fit in with military expectations. This type of discharge was also given to a very high number of African American service members.
People who received a blue discharge faced many problems in their civilian lives. They were not allowed to get benefits from the G.I. Bill, which helped veterans with things like education and housing. It was also hard for them to find jobs because employers knew that a blue discharge had a negative meaning. Because of strong criticism from newspapers, especially African American newspapers, and from Congress, the blue discharge was stopped in 1947. It was replaced by two new types of discharges: "general" and "undesirable."
Contents
What Was a Blue Discharge?
The blue discharge was created in 1916. It replaced two older types of discharges. These discharges were printed on blue paper, which is how they got their name. People sometimes called them "blue tickets." Early on, blue discharges were sometimes given to service members who had joined the military to fight in World War I when they were too young. However, this practice was later stopped by law, and those discharges were changed to honorable ones.
Why Were Blue Discharges Given?
During World War II, the U.S. military grew very quickly. It became difficult to hold formal trials for every service member who didn't fit military rules. So, some commanders started using administrative discharges, like the blue discharge, instead.
A policy in 1944 said that service members who were seen as "unfit for service" due to certain personal characteristics should be discharged. It's not known exactly how many people received blue discharges for these reasons. However, in 1946, the Army estimated that it had given out between 49,000 and 68,000 blue discharges in total. About 5,000 of these were given to people who were seen as different in their personal lives. The Navy estimated around 4,000 such cases.
Doctors who helped create the rules for screening service members at first supported blue discharges for these reasons. But when they saw how much trouble people with blue tickets faced after leaving the military, they asked the military to stop using them. Dr. William C. Menninger, a top psychiatrist for the Army, even tried to get the military to give honorable discharges to these service members if they hadn't committed any crimes.
One newspaper explained that administrative blue discharges were meant to quickly return soldiers to civilian life. They were for people whose habits or traits made them "undesirable" for continued service. The goal was to help these soldiers get back into the economy and solve personal problems like finding jobs or getting an education.
Problems Caused by Blue Discharges
.jpg)
The Veterans Administration (VA) was in charge of giving out benefits from the G.I. Bill. However, the VA often denied benefits to veterans who had received a blue discharge. This was despite the G.I. Bill saying that only a dishonorable discharge should stop someone from getting benefits. In 1945, the VA even issued a rule to deny benefits for all blue discharges given for certain personal reasons.
Most employers asked job applicants who had been in the military to show their discharge papers. Veterans with blue discharges found it very hard to get jobs. Many employers knew that a blue discharge meant the person was considered "undesirable." Even if employers didn't know, they could look up special codes that the military used to classify discharges. Some of these codes clearly showed if a discharge was related to personal characteristics.
Members of Congress were worried about the unfair use of the blue discharge when they were creating the G.I. Bill in 1944. The American Legion, a group for veterans, strongly pushed for a rule that would give benefits to veterans with any discharge except a dishonorable one. They believed many veterans had received blue or other less-than-honorable discharges for unfair or minor reasons.
Senator Bennett Champ Clark, who helped write the G.I. Bill, spoke out against denying benefits. He said that if the government drafted someone into the military and then gave them a blue discharge because they didn't show enough skill, that person should still get the benefits that other soldiers received.
The G.I. Bill also created boards to review discharges. About one-third of all blue discharges that were reviewed were changed to honorable ones.
Criticism from African American Newspapers
African Americans were another group who received a very high number of blue discharges. From December 1941 to June 1945, the Army issued 48,603 blue discharges. Of these, 10,806 went to African Americans. This means African Americans received 22.23% of all blue discharges, even though they made up only 6.5% of the Army at that time.
In October 1945, The Pittsburgh Courier, an important African American newspaper, started an investigation into the blue discharge. They called it a "vicious instrument" and criticized the Army for letting prejudiced officers use it to punish African American soldiers.
The Courier also specifically mentioned the unfair treatment of people who received blue tickets because of their personal characteristics. They called these people "unfortunates" and demanded to know why the Army would punish them, especially when they seemed to need the G.I. Bill benefits the most.
The newspaper even printed instructions on how to appeal a blue discharge. It warned readers not to accept a blue ticket because of the negative impact it would have on their lives.
Other groups also spoke out against the unfair use of the blue discharge. These included the American Legion, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Congress of Industrial Organizations, and the Veterans Benevolent Association. In the U.S. Senate, Senator Edwin C. Johnson read the Courier's editorial into the official record. He noted that a blue discharge meant a veteran hadn't been found guilty of a crime but was still separated from the military without being able to defend themselves. He said there shouldn't be a "twilight zone between innocence and guilt."
Government Report on Blue Discharges
Because of reports about the unfair treatment of veterans with blue tickets, a special committee in the House of Representatives looked into the Veterans Administration's rules. This committee released its report, often called "Blue Discharges," on January 30, 1946.
The committee was surprised that anyone with a blue discharge would speak out, risking more shame. They noted that even a small number of complaints meant a lot, because people felt such a strong sense of injustice that they were willing to make their "stigma" public.
After looking at many cases, the committee found that the blue discharge process could lead to dismissals based on "prejudice and antagonism." They also found that the effects of a blue discharge were almost the same as a dishonorable discharge. People found it hard to get or keep jobs, and society often viewed them with suspicion. The report called the system "anomalous and illogical" and criticized the VA for acting like it had the right to "pass moral verdicts" on soldiers.
To fix the discharge system, the committee suggested several changes:
- All blue discharges should be reviewed automatically.
- The Army should have to show that it tried to help a service member multiple times before giving a blue discharge.
- Service members facing a blue discharge should have the right to a lawyer.
- Rules about the blue discharge process should be available to anyone who asks.
- Any discharge that didn't say it was honorable should clearly state that it was not dishonorable.
The committee also suggested changing the discharge system to four types: honorable, dishonorable (with no changes to their meanings), "under honorable conditions" (to replace the blue discharge), and "general" (for misconduct).
What Happened Next?
Even after the committee's report, the VA continued to treat blue-ticket veterans unfairly. Blue discharges were finally stopped on July 1, 1947. They were replaced by two new types: "general" and "undesirable." A general discharge was considered "under honorable conditions," while an undesirable discharge was "under conditions other than honorable."
At the same time, the Army changed its rules to make sure that service members with certain personal characteristics would not qualify for general discharges. Those found to have engaged in certain acts still received dishonorable discharges. But those identified as having certain personal characteristics, but not having committed any acts, now received undesirable discharges. People with these characteristics continued to receive a very high percentage of undesirable discharges. This situation continued until a new policy called "don't ask, don't tell" was put in place in 1993.
Some people have suggested that the large populations of people with certain personal characteristics in cities like San Francisco, Chicago, and New York City are partly a result of the blue discharge. The idea is that many blue-ticket veterans from smaller towns felt they couldn't go back home because of the shame of their discharges. So, they moved to bigger cities that already had groups of people like them, or they just stayed in the cities where they returned to the U.S. This idea is not widely accepted.
See also
In Spanish: Baja azul para niños
