| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Paul Wright | Analyst |
| Ms. Melinda M. Darby | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge be upgraded to a General Discharge (GD). He indicates he was an immature 17-year old with a troubled childhood. His mother died when he was 16 months old and he was the youngest of 8 siblings. He was absent without leave (AWOL) and was given a choice to straighten out or go home. He has turned his life around and has become a responsible citizen.
PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records were lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973. Information herein was obtained from reconstructed personnel records.
The applicant was born on 27 May 1938 and enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 14 September 1955. Following completion of all required military training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 120.00, Pioneer.
On 25 May 1956, the applicant was convicted by a Summary Court-Martial of being AWOL from 7 May through 21 May 1956. The sentence included restriction for 1 month and forfeiture of $50.00.
On 13 July 1956, the applicant was convicted by a Summary Court-Martial of being AWOL from 2 July through 5 July 1956. The sentence included hard labor without confinement for 1 month and forfeiture of $50.00.
On 2 August 1956, the applicant was convicted by a Summary Court-Martial of being AWOL from 26 July through 27 July 1956. The sentence included confinement at hard labor for 1 month and forfeiture of $50.00.
On 4 August 1956, the unit commander recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-208, paragraph 1c, for unfitness. On 7 August 1956, the battalion commander recommended approval.
On 8 August 1956, the applicant was notified to appear before a board of officers under the provisions of AR 635-208 to answer allegations of habitual shirking, unreliability, and misconduct. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and indicated he did not desire representation by counsel.
On 9 August 1956, a board of officers was convened and the applicant appeared without counsel.
On 9 August 1956, the Dispensary Surgeon indicated that a psychiatric evaluation was not required.
On 13 August 1956, the board of officers recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of AR 635-208 for unfitness with an Undesirable Discharge (UD). Reasons cited were misconduct, being an habitual shirker, unreliability, and repeated petty offenses.
On 20 August 1956, the General Court Martial Convening Authority approved the Board's recommendations and directed the issuance of a UD.
On 6 September 1956, a separation physical found the applicant physically qualified for separation.
On 6 September 1956, the applicant was separated with a UD. He was credited with 10 months and 6 days of active Federal service, and he had 47 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, set forth the policy for administrative separation for unfitness (misconduct). Paragraph 1c(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel where there was evidence of an antisocial or amoral trend, chronic alcoholism, criminalism, drug addiction, pathological lying, or misconduct. Action to separate an individual was to be taken when, in the judgment of the commander, it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impractical or was unlikely to produce a satisfactory soldier. When separation for unfitness was warranted, a UD was normally issued.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
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. Failure to file within 3 years may be excused by a correction board if it finds it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
DISCUSSION: The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 6 September 1956, the date of discharge. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 6 September 1959.
The application is dated 26 February 2002 and the applicant has not explained or otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated by competent evidence that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to apply within the time allotted.
DETERMINATION: The subject application was not submitted within the time required. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law. Prior to reaching this determination the Board looked at the applicant’s entire file. It was only after all aspects of his case had been considered and it had been concluded that there was no basis to recommend a correction of his record that the Board considered the statute of limitations. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it would have recommended relief in spite of the applicant’s failure to submit his application within the three-year time limit.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__mmd___ __rwa___ __clg___ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2002070102 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020820 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19560906 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-208 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A51.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.5000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006021
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 September 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070006021 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. However, his record shows that he was convicted by a summary court-martial and a special court-martial, received...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006098
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 August 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070006098 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. On 26 February 1957, the applicant's immediate commander requested the applicant appear before a board of officers to determine whether he should be separated for constantly committing offenses and lacking the ability...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004101856C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to a medical discharge. On 17 April 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board granted the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. Therefore, no basis has been established for correcting his record to show he was separated for medical reasons.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059182C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 6 December 1957, the board of officers recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 because of unfitness due an established pattern of shirking with an undesirable discharge. However, his records contain a Case Report and Directive from the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) which indicates that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060016772
On 12 June 1957, the applicants commander initiated separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness. The commander stated that the applicant had received three NJP, two courts-martial, and was under arrest in quarters pending action by the convening authority on his last conviction. Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, provided the authority for discharging enlisted personnel for unfitness.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000087C070205
The applicant’s military records are not available to the Board for review. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. There is no evidence in the applicant's records, and the applicant has provided none, to show that he applied for an upgrade of his discharge to the ADRB within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012361
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 May 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060012361 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicants company commander concluded by stating that under the circumstances at the time, the service would benefit if he were discharged, and recommended that he be discharged under the provisions of Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052826C070420
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The Board accepted his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056266C070420
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded. On 11 July 1957, the applicant’s unit commander completed a statement in which he recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Army. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and that the character of the discharge was commensurate with his overall record of service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120018247
The applicant's military records are not available for review. While the separation authority could grant a general, under honorable conditions discharge or honorable discharge, if warranted by the member's overall record of service, the issuance of an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate for members separated under these provisions. The available evidence does not indicate the actions taken in this case were in error or unjust.