RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        21 April 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040008079


      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. Michael J. Fowler             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Fred Eichorn                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Delia R. Trimble              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |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 be
upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge and correction
of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or
Discharge) to show his correct social security number (SSN).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was young at the time of his
discharge and he needs a discharge upgrade for future employment.  He
further states that the last digit of his SSN on his DD Form 214 is
incorrect.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his social security card.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 5 May 1969.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 13 January 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.  On 15 May 1949, the applicant was born.  He enlisted in the Regular
Army on 18 July 1967.  He did not successfully complete basic combat
training.

4.  On 1 November 1967, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent
without leave (AWOL) for the period from 29 August 1967 through 28
September 1967.

5.  On 11 April 1968, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-
martial of being AWOL for the period from 4 December 1967 through 19 March
1968.  He was sentenced to restriction to the company area for 30 days and
the forfeiture of $40 for one month.

6.  On 17 May 1968, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for
being AWOL for the period from 30 April 1968 through 9 May 1968.

7.  Records show that the applicant was AWOL for the period from 10 June
1968 through 17 June 1968.

8.  On 19 March 1969, the applicant was convicted by a special court-
martial of being AWOL for the period from 3 September 1968 through 14
January 1969.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for six months
and forfeiture of $46.00 per month for six months.

9.  On 7 March 1969, the applicant underwent a mental evaluation by a
military psychiatrist that determined that he could distinguish right from
wrong and adhere to the right, and had mental capacity to understand and
participate in board proceedings.

10.  Apparently the applicant was notified by his commander that he was
required to appear before a board of officers to determine whether he
should be discharged for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-212 (Discharge-Unfitness and Unsuitability), paragraph 6 for unfitness
for duty.

11.  On 28 March 1969, the applicant consulted with the Defense Counsel at
Fort Knox, Kentucky.  The applicant was advised of his rights and the
effect of a waiver of those rights.

12.  The applicant was also advised of the basis for his separation under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.  The applicant indicated that he
was counseled by appropriate counsel, that he waived consideration of his
case by a board of officers, that he did not provide statements on his own
behalf and that he waived representation by military counsel.

13.  The applicant also indicated that he was aware that as a result of the
issuance of an undesirable discharge that he may be ineligible for any or
all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and state laws and that he may
expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life based on that
undesirable discharge.

14.  On 16 April 1969, the unit commander recommended the applicant be
separated for unfitness based on frequent incidents of a discreditable
nature under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.

15.  On 28 April 1969, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's
discharge for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.
On 5 May 1969, he was discharged with an undesirable discharge and a
characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions after
completing 7 months and 28 days of creditable active service and had 415
days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.  His DD Form 214 shows the
ninth digit of his SSN as --- -- 3555.

16.  The applicant enlisted prior to the standard use of the SSN as an
identification number; however, a number of documents in his records list
his SSN.  While some of them (to include his enlistment contract) show his
SSN to be --- -- 3555, the majority of them show his SSN to be --- -- 3559.

17.  The applicant submitted his social security card that shows the
correct ninth digit SSN of --- -- 3559.

18.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6 of the
regulation provided, in pertinent part, that an individual was subject to
separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents of a discreditable
nature with civil or military authorities; sexual perversion including but
not limited to lewd and lascivious acts, indecent exposure, indecent acts
with or assault on a child; drug addiction or the unauthorized use or
possession of habit-forming drugs or marijuana; an established pattern of
shirking; and an established pattern of dishonorable failure to pay just
debts or to contribute adequate support to dependents (including failure to
comply with orders, decrees or judgments).  When separation for unfitness
was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

19.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable
discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits
provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the
quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis
added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization
would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be
resolved in favor of the individual.

20.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general
discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When
authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory
but not sufficiently
meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under
honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s
separation specifically allows such characterization.





DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Records show that the applicant was 18 years and 2 months old at the
time his active service began and 19 years, 11 months, and 20 days old at
the time of his discharge.  After his first Article 15, he knew there would
be consequences for his actions.  Therefore, his contention that he was
young at the time of his offenses does not mitigate his indiscipline.

2.  The applicant contends that his discharge needs to be upgraded for
future employment.  However, the ABCMR does not grant relief solely for the
purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

3.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is determined that all
requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the
applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

4.  The applicant's records show that he was convicted by one special and
one summary courts-martial, received two Article 15s, and had five
instances of AWOL.  The applicant had completed 7 months and 28 days of
creditable active service with a total of 415 lost days due to AWOL and
confinement.  Based on these facts, the applicant’s service clearly did not
meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army
personnel which are required for issuance of an honorable discharge or
general discharge.

5.  The applicant's DD Form 214 erroneously shows the ninth digit of his
social security number as --- -- 3555.  The applicant's social security
card and the preponderance of documents in his records confirm that the DD
Form 214 is incorrect and should be corrected to reflect the ninth digit of
his social security number as --- -- 3559.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 5 May 1969.  Therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 4 May 1972.  Although the applicant did not file within the
ABCMR's statute of limitations, it is appropriate to waive failure to
timely file in this case based on the evidence submitted.







BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__ FE ___  _ DRT __  __RTD __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely
file.  As a result, the Board recommends that the applicant's DD Form 214
for the period ending 5 May 1969 be corrected to show the applicant's ninth
digit of his social security number as 9.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to a general (under honorable
conditions) discharge.




                                  __    _ Fred Eichorn _____
                                             CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040007313                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |21 April 2005                           |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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