BOARD DATE: 14 October 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140004369 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states he was discharged due to discriminatory practices. He was only paid $78.00 a month when he entered the Army. He states the money he is now receiving from Social Security is not sufficient for him and his wife to live on. 3. The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his application. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 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 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant’s military records are not available to the Board for review. A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members’ records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973. It is believed that the applicant’s records were lost or destroyed in that fire. The only records available to this Board are the applicant’s DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) with effective dates of 2 December 1954 and 14 February 1958. 3. On 1 December 1952, he was inducted into the Army of the United States. He was released from active duty on 2 December 1954. On 1 May 1955, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. 4. On 14 February 1958, he was discharged by reason of unfitness (general) for undesirable habits or traits of character. He had served 9 months and 14 days of net active service this period that was characterized as under other than honorable conditions. The applicant was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 5. A Military Basic Pay and Allowances Chart effective 1 April 1955 shows that an E-1 with less than 4 months in service was paid $78.00 a month; $83 a month with over 4 months in service; and $98 a month with over 2 years in service. 6. Army Regulation 635-208 (Personnel Separation, Discharge, Undesirable Habits and Traits of Character), then in effect, provided procedures and guidance in the elimination from the service enlisted personnel having undesirable habits and traits of character. This regulation provided that an enlisted person who gave evidence of undesirable habits and traits of character would be recommended for discharge because of undesirability. This regulation also provided that persons discharged because of undesirable habits or traits of character would be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate (DD Form 258A). 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 regulation provides that 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. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. He contends he was discharged based on discriminatory practices in the Army. However, he provided no evidence to support his contention. 2. The pay chart for 1955 shows he was not paid any less than any other E-1 with the same amount of service as he had. 3. His issue concerning the amount of social security he is now receiving is not within the jurisdiction of the ABCMR. Therefore, he must contact the Social Security Administration concerning that issue. 4. Although the applicant's separation package was not available and the exact circumstances surrounding his discharge are not known, it is presumed that the Army's administrative processing of the applicant for discharge is correct. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 5. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is determined that all requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Further, it is determined that the type of discharge and the reason for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___X_____ ___X_____ __X___ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. __________X_____________ CHAIRPERSON 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140004369 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140004369 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1