RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          25 October 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050003856


      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, upon returning from maneuvers and
prior to his court-martial, he was told to go home and that he had 26 days
to clear the post.  He contends that he went home and approximately 20
minutes later the Criminal Investigation Division arrived at his door and
accused him of stealing a watch and misappropriating Government property.
He states that he removed his personal watch and replaced it with a
military timepiece for the mission and that he had just forgotten to
replace it which he was going to do the next day.  He also states that he
was told that if he would reenlist for another six years that “all of this
would go away.”

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 17 April 1964.  The application submitted in this case is dated
4 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 August 1955 for a
period of 3 years.  He was honorably discharged on 3 February 1956.  He
reenlisted on
4 February 1956 for a period of 3 years.  He was honorably discharged on 1
April 1958.  He reenlisted on 2 April 1958 for a period of 6 years.

4.  On 9 April 1964, in accordance with his pleas, the applicant was
convicted by a special court-martial of two specifications of larceny (two
watches).  He was sentenced to be reduced to E-1, to forfeit $48 per month
for 6 months, and to be confined at hard labor for 6 months.  On 9 April
1964, the convening authority approved the sentence but suspended that
portion of the sentence to confinement at hard labor for one month.

5.  On 17 April 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 9 years, 4 months, and 22
days of creditable active service.

6.  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.

7.  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.

8.  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.  The applicant’s contentions relate to evidentiary and procedural
matters that should have been addressed and conclusively adjudicated in the
court-martial appellate process and furnish no basis for recharacterization
of the discharge.

2.  The applicant’s record of service included one special 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 17 April 1964; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 16
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

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                 |AR20050003856                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051025                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19640417                                |
|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]