RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          25 October 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050003675


      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 Anderholm               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jose Martinez                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne 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 that his general discharge be upgraded to
honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was unfairly punished and
reduced in rank.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or
Discharge) and DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 3 January 1964.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 1 March 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 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 was inducted on 15 February 1961.  He successfully
completed basic combat training and was honorably discharged on 14 May 1961
for enlistment in the Regular Army.  He enlisted on 15 May 1961 for a
period of 3 years.  He was awarded military occupational specialty 111.67
(light weapons infantryman).

4.  On 13 April 1964, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for failure to repair and using disrespectful language toward a
superior noncommissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of a reduction
to E-4.  On 24 April 1964, the punishment of reduction to E-4 was mitigated
to a forfeiture of $75 per month for 2 months.

5.  On 12 May 1964, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for breaking restriction.  His punishment consisted of a
reduction to E-4 and restriction.

6.  On 23 May 1964, contrary to his pleas, the applicant was convicted by a
summary court-martial of being absent without leave, breaking restriction,
and being disrespectful toward his superior officer.  He was sentenced to
be reduced to E-2.  On 26 May 1964, the convening authority approved the
sentence.

7.  On 3 June 1964, the applicant was released from active duty with a
general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 for
expiration term of service.  He had completed 3 years, 3 months, and 20
days of creditable active service.

8.  A DD Form 215, dated 19 November 1964, corrected item 3b (Date of Rank)
to read 26 May 64 on the applicant's DD Form 214.

9.  There is no indication in the available records that the applicant
applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within
its 15-year statute of limitations.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  The regulation, in effect at the time,
provided, in pertinent part, for the discharge of enlisted personnel upon
expiration of term of service.  The regulation also stated, in pertinent
part, that the evaluation of an individual's service and conduct would be
based on his overall  period of service rather than on any disqualifying
entries in his service record during a particular portion of his current
service.

11.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the applicant contends that he was unfairly punished and
reduced in rank, there is no evidence of record to support these
contentions.

2.  The applicant’s record of service included two nonjudicial punishments
and one summary court-martial conviction.  As a result, his record of
service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of
duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is
insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

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

JA_____  JM______  LD______  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 Anderholm____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050003675                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051025                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19640603                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Expiration term of service              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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