RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           18 October 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050002097


      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. John Slone                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Linda Simmons                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Kenneth Lapin                 |     |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 clemency in the form of a
general discharge be granted.

2.  The applicant states he is living a clean and sober life.  Through his
addiction (alcoholism), he states he made some unlawful mistakes but at the
time there was no treatment available for his disease.  He also states a
discharge upgrade would aide him in obtaining better employment.

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 2 April 1964.  The application submitted in this case is dated
25 January 2005.

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 enlisted on 25 April 1961 for a period of 3 years.  He
served as an armor intelligence specialist and was honorably discharged on
7 July 1963 for immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 8 July 1963 for a
period of 3 years.

4.  On 4 February 1964, in accordance with his pleas, the applicant was
convicted by a general court-martial of being derelict in the performance
of his duties (failed to safeguard a pistol, a rifle, and an operating
instruction), violating a lawful general regulation (operated a privately
owned vehicle without a valid license), drunk driving, wrongful
appropriation of a truck, wrongful appropriation of an automobile, and
leaving the scene of two accidents without making his identity known.  He
was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 6 months, to be discharged
from the service with a bad conduct discharge, to forfeit all pay and
allowances, and to be reduced to E-1.  On 19 February 1964, the convening
authority approved the sentence.

5.  On 25 March 1964, the United States Army Board of Review, Office of The
Judge Advocate General, affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence.

6.  The bad conduct discharge was ordered to be executed on 2 April 1964.

7.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with a bad conduct discharge
on
2 April 1964 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-204, for
conviction by a general court-martial.  He had served 2 years, 7 months and
3 days of total active service with 127 days of lost time due to AWOL (29
October 1963 to
30 October 1963) and confinement.

8.  Army Regulation 635-204, in effect at that time, set forth the basic
authority for separation of enlisted personnel with dishonorable and bad
conduct discharges.  Paragraph 1b of this regulation states that an
enlisted person will be discharged with a bad conduct discharge pursuant
only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial imposing
a bad conduct discharge.

9.  Section 1552(f), Title 10, United States Code states that the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records can only review records of court-
martial and related administrative records to correct a record to
accurately reflect action taken by reviewing authorities under the Uniform
Code of Military Justice or to take clemency action.

10.  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.  A discharge is not upgraded for the sole purpose of obtaining
employment opportunities.

2.  The applicant's record of service included one general court-martial
conviction for numerous serious offenses.  Although the applicant contends
that he made these unlawful mistakes due to his addiction, his record of
service was not satisfactory.  The applicant's current clean and sober life
is commendable but not sufficient to warrant clemency in the form of a
general discharge.

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 2 April 1964; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 1
April 1967.  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

JS_____  LS______  KL______  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.




            ___John Slone_________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050002097                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051018                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |BCD                                     |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19640402                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-204                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Conviction by a general court-martial   |
|BOARD DECISION          |NC                                      |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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