RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           21 June 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040007851


      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:

|     |Ms. Margaret K. Patterson         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |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, in effect, that he was not given a proper hearing
at the time of his discharge.  He also acknowledges that his records were
destroyed in a 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored letter and a picture in support
of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 18 October 1964.  The applicant first applied to this
Board on
21 October 1981, and the last application he submitted in this case was
dated
21 September 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.  The applicant was
first informed of this in a response to his 1981 application to the Board
and was last informed of this in response to his 1999 application to the
Board on the same subject.  This case will be considered by the Board using
a reconstructed record that consists of the applicant’s separation document
(DD Form 214).

4.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army
and entered active duty on 3 November 1950.  The separation document
further shows that he completed 1 year and 10 days of overseas service, and
that he earned the following awards during his active duty tenure:  Korean
Service Medal (KSM) with 2 bronze service stars, United Nations Service
Medal (UNSM), National Defense Service Medal (NDSM) and Combat Infantryman
Badge (CIB).

5.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 also shows that he was separated under the
provisions of Army Regulation 615-368, by reason of unfitness on 18 October
1954.  At the time, he held the rank of private, and had completed a total
of
2 years, 6 months and 10 days of creditable active military service.  This
document also shows that he accrued 521 days of time.

6.  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 was unjustly discharged was
carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support
this claim.

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
and carries a presumption of Government regularity in the discharge
process.

4.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that all requirements
of law and regulation were met and that the rights of the applicant were
protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the DD Form 214
clearly shows the applicant accrued 521 days of time lost.  As a result, it
appears the UD he received was appropriate.

5.  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.

6.  The evidence shows the applicant should have discovered the alleged
error or injustice now under consideration on 18 October 1954.  Therefore,
the time for him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 17 October 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

___MKP_  ___PHM _  __LMD__  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.




            ____Margaret K. Patterson___
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040007851                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/06/21                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1954/10/18                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 615-368                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unfitness                               |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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