Opinion ID: 306730
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Resignation

Text: 14 The Army bases its action in giving Robinson a Discharge Certificate under other than honorable conditions on AR 635-120 and the letter of resignation, signed by Robinson, dated 5 May 1955. Despite the many years of attempts to discover exactly when and how the resignation was obtained and submitted (or perhaps because of those many years), some doubt remains on the significant facts surrounding the signing and delivery of this letter. Robinson's story is that an officer, whose identity he cannot now remember, approached him in the hospital on 5 May, suggested that he sign the pre-typed letter, and took it away once the signature had been obtained. The Army contends that Robinson handed over his resignation letter to the investigating officer, Major Hale, with counsel present, on 6 May. Neither version would establish a violation of regulations, but the Army's actions look considerably less deliberate and equitable if Robinson's story is believed. 15 While there is no specific Board finding on this conflict over the evidence, we think there is implicit acceptance of Robinson's theory as to when the resignation was submitted in the Board's finding that Major Hale was presented with a copy of the resignation on 6 May. 6 Other uncontradicted evidence supports the conclusion that Robinson effectively submitted his resignation on 5 May, when he was still in the hospital and before the pre-trial investigation of the charges against him had been reconvened. Prior to his release from the hospital, the Army psychiatrist recommended that Robinson return to duty for separation under provisions of AR 635-120. This final recommendation indicates that the psychiatrist was aware of Robinson's resignation under AR 635-120 as of 5 May. 16 In addition, Lt. Col. (then Major) Hale, whom the Board believed, testified that he attached the resignation letter he received to his investigation report. However, the original of the letter was forwarded the same day with Robinson's commanding officer's first endorsement. 7 In short, we think the conclusion inevitable that the resignation reached Robinson's commanding officer (Lt. Overby) as a result of its effective submission by Robinson, in the hospital, on 5 May. 8 Once that version is accepted, the precise method in which Major Hale obtained a copy has no particular relevance. 17 The secondary question of who appeared at the hospital to obtain the resignation cannot now be satisfactorily resolved. However, it would be unreasonable to contend that Robinson personally initiated, or even understood the significance of, that confrontation. 18 The question remains clouded in part because most of the likely candidates were unavailable to testify. Major Hale could not have been the mysterious visitor, 9 but Lt. Overby or Lt. Col. Carroll (Robinson's battalion commander) might have been. They did not appear before the Review Board. 19 On oral argument to this court, the Government suggested that the visitor could have been Robinson's own counsel, Lt. Crowell. We find that suggestion unlikely in light of the fact that the letter is typed on battalion stationery. 10 However, even if true, that scenario would merely enhance our doubts about the adequacy of Robinson's Army-furnished counsel. It would certainly not remove the inequity of granting a less than honorable discharge under all the circumstances of this case. 20