RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           18 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050000736


      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             |
|     |Ms. Wanda L. Waller               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Vick                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald Weaver                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Robert Rogers                 |     |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 that his general discharge be upgraded to
honorable.

2.  The applicant states that he reenlisted in the Army in 1955 and was
honorably discharged in 1957.  He contends he has never been in trouble
with the law and would like to have his first discharge upgraded to
honorable.

3.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 18 April 1954.  The application submitted in this case is dated
9 December 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.

4.  The applicant enlisted on 12 March 1951 for a period of 3 years.  He
served in Korea and was discharged with a general discharge on 18 April
1954 under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-360 for expiration term of
service.

5.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces
of the United States) for the period ending 18 April 1954 shows that he had
37 days of lost time.

6.  The applicant entered active duty again on 26 April 1955 for a period
of          2 years.  He served as a field artillery crewman and released
from active duty on 25 April 1957.

7.  Army Regulation 615-360, in effect at the time, set forth the general
provisions governing the discharge of enlisted personnel.  It states, in
pertinent part, that Army Regulation 615-360 applied to individuals
discharged for expiration of service.  It is the policy of the Department
of the Army to base evaluation of an individual's service and character on
his overall enlistment period rather than on any disqualifying entries in
his service record during a particular portion of his current service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Good post service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a
discharge.

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that
the applicant’s separation in 1954 was administratively correct and in
conformance with applicable regulations.  Based on 37 days lost time, it is
presumed the commander determined the applicant's service was
insufficiently meritorious to warrant a fully honorable characterization of
service.

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 25 April 1957; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 24
April 1960.  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
timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

JV____  RW______  RR______  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.



            __James Vick__________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050000736                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050818                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19540418                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 615-360                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Expiration term of service              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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