RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           17 February 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040002322


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Thomas D. Howard              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Infante                  |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Maribeth Love                 |     |Member               |

      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, in effect, an upgrade of his undesirable
discharge (UD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he remembers no misconduct that
would have supported an UD.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214)
in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 15 December 1953.  The application submitted in this case
is dated 17 May 2004.

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.  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.  However, there
were sufficient documents remaining in a reconstructed record for the Board
to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.  The applicant’s
military records are not available to the Board.  This case is being
considered using reconstructed records, which primarily consists of the
applicant’s DD Form 214.

4.  The specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s
discharge processing are not available for review.  The evidence does
include a properly constituted DD Form 214 that contains the authority and
reason for the applicant’s discharge and this document was authenticated by
the applicant with his signature.
5.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows that he was inducted into the Army
and entered active duty on 30 August 1951.  This document further shows
that at the time of his separation, he held the rank of private/E-1 (PV1).
If also shows that he completed a total of 1 year, 4 months and 3 days of
creditable active military service and accrued 348 days of time lost.

6.  The applicant’s separation document also confirms that on 15 December
1953, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation
615-368, by reason of unfitness (habits and traits that rendered him
undesirable for retention in the service) and that he received an UD.

7.  Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority, established the policy, and prescribed the procedures for
separating members for unfitness.  An undesirable discharge was normally
considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that he remembers committing no misconduct
that would have supported an UD was carefully considered.  However, this is
not a sufficiently mitigating factor to support granting the requested
relief.

2.  The available evidence is void of a discharge packet containing the
specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to the
applicant’s discharge.  However, there is a properly constituted DD Form
214 on file that was authenticated by the applicant with his signature.
This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge.
This document carries a presumption of Government regularity in the
discharge process.

3.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that all requirements
of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were
protected throughout the separation process.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 15 December 1953.  Therefore, the time
for him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired
on
14 December 1957.  However, he failed to 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
timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JI     _  ___TDH _  ___MBL _  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would 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.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




            ____Thomas D. Howard___
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040002322                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/02/17                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1953/12/15                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 615-368                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unfitness                               |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]