RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: 2 December 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003089063


         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.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mr. Paul Wright		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson
Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member
Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr.		Member

         The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).

---

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1. The applicant requests the character of his discharge be upgraded from undesirable to general.

2. The applicant states he believes the character of his discharge was incorrect because he acted in direct response to the Army's failure to send him to the school he was promised at the time of his enlistment. He was guaranteed welding training, but the military said he did not qualify and instead sent him to truck driving school. He did 13 months and then went absent without leave (AWOL) because of his unhappiness. He was promised welding school and sending him to truck driving school was a breach of the enlistment contract he had with the military.

3. The applicant provides no attachments or evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1. The applicant is requesting correction of an injustice which occurred on 20 November 1962. The application submitted in this case is dated 17 March 2003.

2. 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 allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so. In this case, the ABCMR will conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3. On 10 April 1961, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years with a minority waiver for age. In Item 25 (Usual Civilian Occupation) on his entrance Standard Form 89 (Report of Medical History), dated 4 April 1961, the applicant indicates his usual occupation was that of a welder's helper. His enlistment contract specified he was enlisting for ACG (Army Career Group) 64, Motor Transport. A 2AA Form 628 (Enlistment Statement) signed by the applicant indicates he was promised ACG 64 in connection with his enlistment in the Regular Army.

---

4. On 19 July 1962, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 1 June through 30 June 1962. The sentence included confinement at hard labor for 6 months and forfeiture of $55.00 per month for 6 months. On 30 July 1962 that portion of the sentence pertaining to confinement was suspended until 20 January 1963.

5. On 2 October 1962, the applicant received a psychiatric evaluation. The psychiatrist indicate that the applicant desired to be separated from the Army and return home to take over his deceased father's welding business. The psychiatrist further recommended that the applicant be separated from the service with an undesirable discharge.

6. On 10 October 1962, the applicant acknowledged that he was being recommended for elimination and he could receive an undesirable discharge. He further indicated he did not desire counsel, he did not desire a board of officers, and he declined to submit a statement in his behalf.

7. On 12 October 1962, the applicant's commander recommended that he be considered for elimination under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 with the issuance of an undesirable discharge. He indicated in the discharge packet that the applicant, while under a suspended court-martial sentence for AWOL, again went AWOL for 15 days. He further indicated that the applicant had repeatedly stated he wanted a discharge from the military. He went on to state that the applicant had a total disregard for military authority and all rehabilitation attempts had been met with total indifference. All intermediate commanders recommended approval with issuance of an undesirable discharge.

8. On 31 October 1962, the general court-martial convening authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

9. On 5 November 1962, the applicant received a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

10. On 20 November 1962, the applicant was separated with an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness. He had 1 year, 2 months, and 14 days of active Federal service. He had 150 days of lost time.

---

11. 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.

12. 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1. The applicant's military records do not support his claim that he was guaranteed welding training upon enlistment. Two different signed enlistment documents indicate that he enlisted for training as a motor transport operator.

2. The applicant successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual training for light vehicle driver certification.

3. There is no indication in the applicant's records that he was unhappy with his career field or the training he received. However, even if this was the source of his motivation to go AWOL, the applicant had other avenues of relief available to him without resorting to misconduct.

4. Records show the applicant should have discovered the error or injustice now under consideration on 20 November 1962; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 20 November 1965. However, the applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to file in this case.

---

BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___fne__ __mhm___ __phm___ DENY APPLICATION

The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations prescribed by law.



                           Fred N. Eichorn
                  ______________________
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003089063
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20031202
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19621120
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	144.5000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.