RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        22 March 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040002755


      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. Robert McGowan                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Thomas D. Howard, Jr.         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert J. Osborn, II          |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. James B. Gunlicks             |     |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, that his Undesirable Discharge (UD)
be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states that he was young when he enlisted; that he served
as an infantryman during the Korean War; and that his "head seemed messed
up" when he returned from Korea.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement, dated 31 May 2004, in
which he expresses regret and embarrassment.  He states that there is no
error in his discharge, but he adds that he is 70 years old and asks for
compassion.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 6 February 1954.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 2 June 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 limitations 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.  This case is
being considered using reconstructed records, which primarily consist of
the applicant's DD Form 214 (Report of Separation From The Armed Forces of
The United States) and orders transferring him to and from Korea.

3.  The applicant was born in Indianapolis, Indiana on 12 January 1934.  He
enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 19 February 1951 at age 17
years, 1 month and 7 days.  He was trained as an infantryman and
transferred to
Korea, arriving there on/about 1 August 1952.  He was assigned to the 223rd
Infantry Regiment, 40th Infantry Division and saw combat in the Heartbreak
Ridge – Punchbowl area.  He was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge.

4.  On/about 24 August 1953, the applicant was relieved from assignment
with the 223rd Infantry Regiment and transferred back to the United States
aboard the troopship USNS General Pope.  He arrived in the United States
on/about 9 September 1953 and was assigned to Camp Atterbury, Indiana, 30
miles south of his hometown of Indianapolis.  At the time, he had served
more than 2 1/2 years of his 3-year enlistment and he was a 19-year old
combat veteran.

5.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge are
not available.  His DD Form 214 shows that he was separated under the
provisions of Army Regulation 615-366 for the offense of absent with leave
(AWOL).  It shows that he was AWOL for 269 days.

6.  AR 615-366, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for
the separation of enlisted personnel for reasons of fraudulent entry, AWOL,
desertion, or conviction by a civil court.  The regulation provided that
members guilty of the above misconduct were subject to separation.  An
undesirable discharge was directed.

7.  The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking
a discharge upgrade.  The ADRB, after considering his case on 4 March 1980,
denied his request.

8.  On 16 March 2005, a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal
records check revealed that the applicant has no FBI record.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army 1 month after his 17th
birthday.  He was sent to Korea where, as an 18-year old infantryman, he
saw combat with the 223rd Infantry Regiment, 40th Infantry Division at
Heartbreak Ridge and the Punchbowl.  He was awarded the Combat Infantryman
Badge.  Following the Armistice on 27 July 1953, he was relieved from
assignment with the 223rd Infantry and sent home.

2.  It is not known why the applicant went AWOL from Camp Atterbury.  Quite
possibly, the close proximity to his hometown made it irresistible for him
to absent himself from his unit.  Also quite possibly, he may have been
suffering from the effects of having been in combat in Korea and simply
could not adjust to the peacetime Army environment at Camp Atterbury.

3.  Fifteen years after the applicant's service, American Soldiers were
returning from a war in Vietnam, and some went AWOL from their terminal
assignments before discharge.  At that time, a policy was implemented to
upgrade other than honorable discharges of Vietnam War veterans.

      a.  In the 1970's, the Department of the Army Special Discharge Review
Program (SDRP) was implemented based on a memorandum from Secretary of
Defense Brown.  It mandated the upgrade of individual cases in which the
applicant met one of several specified criteria and when the separation was
not based on a specified compelling reason to the contrary.  The ADRB had
no discretion in such cases other than to decide whether recharacterization
to fully honorable as opposed to a general discharge was warranted in a
particular case. An individual who had received a punitive discharge was
not eligible for consideration under the SDRP.

      b.  Absentees who returned to military control under the program were
eligible for consideration for a discharge upgrade after they were
processed for separation.  Eligibility for the program was restricted to
individuals discharged with either an UD or a General Discharge (GD)
between 9 August 1964 and 28 March 1973, inclusive.  Individuals could have
their discharges upgraded if they met any one of the following criteria:
wounded in action; received a military decoration other than a service
medal; successfully completed an assignment in Southeast Asia; completed
alternate service;  received an honorable discharge from a previous tour of
military service; or completed alternate service or excused therefrom in
accordance with Presidential Proclamation 4313 of 16 September 1974.
Compelling reasons to the contrary to deny discharge upgrade were desertion
from the combat area; discharge based on a violent act of misconduct;
discharge based on cowardice or misbehavior before the enemy; or discharge
based on an act or misconduct that would be subject to criminal prosecution
under civil law.

4.  Had the applicant served in the Army of the 1960's during the Vietnam
War, instead of in the Army of the 1950's during the Korean War, he would
have qualified for the SDRP discharge upgrade program based upon his having

served a complete tour in a combat zone and his receipt of the Combat
Infantryman Badge.  In all probability, his UD would have been upgraded to
an unaffirmed GD.

5.  While the conduct which led to his separation cannot be condoned, nor
the 269 days of AWOL time forgiven, it is noted that the applicant is a 71-
year old veteran who served honorably for 2 1/2 years of his 3-year
enlistment, with 13 months and 9 days spent in Korea during the Korean War.
 He served in combat and was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge.  Since
his discharge, he has not had any criminal charges brought against him and
his FBI records check indicates his conduct for the past 50 years has been
unblemished.

6.  Although the applicant failed to apply to this Board within the time
required, it would nonetheless be fair and compassionate at this point in
time to recommend the upgrade of his UD to a GD under honorable conditions.

7.  In view of the foregoing, it would be in the interest of justice to
correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__rjo___  __tdh___  __jbg___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

Notwithstanding the DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS presented above, the Board
unanimously determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the
existence of a probable error or injustice.  The applicant's age at the
time of his AWOL offense was determined to be irrelevant to the merits of
the case and the application of Vietnam-era policies to Korean War veterans
was viewed as fallacious.  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.



                                  Thomas D. Howard, Jr.
                            ______________________
                                      CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040002755                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050522                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19540206                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 615-366                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.7100                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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