RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         8 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050003940


      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. Yvonne Foskey                 |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Stanley Kelley                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Diane J. Armstrong            |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Delia R. Trimble              |     |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, an upgrade of his undesirable
discharge (UD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was an 8th grade drop out and
should never have been allowed to enter the military.  He also states that
after returning from his overseas tour, he began drinking too much and
would not admit it.  He further states his overseas duty was nothing less
than honorable.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his
application:  Employee Performance Rating Report, dated 18 March 1976;
Resume; Department of Veterans Affairs Voluntary Service Certificate; Help
Hospitalized Veterans Recognition Certificate; and Letter of
Recommendation.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 10 May 1955.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
25 February 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’s military records were not provided 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.

4.  However, there were sufficient documents remaining in a reconstructed
record for the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.
This case is being considered using reconstructed records that primarily
consist of the applicant’s separation document (DD Form 214).

5.  The specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s
discharge processing are not on file.  The evidence does include a properly
constituted DD Form 214 that contains the authority and reason for the
applicant’s discharge that was authenticated by the applicant with his
signature on the date of his separation, 10 May 1955.

6.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his separation
shows he enlisted into the Regular Army and entered active duty on 14
October 1952.  This document further shows that at the time of his
separation, he had completed a total of 2 years, 5 months, and 12 days of
creditable active military service, and held the rank of private/E-1 (PV1).

7.  The applicant’s separation document also confirms that on 10 May 1955,
he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368, by reason
of unfitness (habits and traits that rendered him undesirable for retention
in the service) and that he received an UD.

8.  The applicant provides an employee performance rating report from the
City of Des Moines that shows he received a standard rating in all
evaluated areas for the period 7 October 1975 through 6 April 1976.  He
also provides a resume that shows his employment history and work
qualifications.  He further provides Certificates of Appreciation from the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for his volunteer service and two third
party letters, dated in 1974 and 2002, respectively, that attest to his
work ethic.

9.  Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority, established the policy, and prescribed the procedures for
separating members for unfitness.  An undesirable discharge was normally
considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his UD should be upgraded because he
never should have been allowed to enter the military since he was just an
8th grade drop out and the supporting documents he provided were carefully
considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support granting
the requested relief.

2.  The available evidence is void of a discharge packet containing the
specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to the
applicant’s discharge.  However, there is a properly constituted DD Form
214 on file that was authenticated by the applicant with his signature.
This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge.
This document carries a presumption of Government regularity in the
discharge process.

3.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that all requirements
of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were
protected throughout the separation process.  The documents he submitted
that attest to his post service employment history and accomplishments were
also carefully considered.  However, while his post service conduct is to
be commended, this factor alone is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant
an upgrade of his discharge at this late date.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 10 May 1955.  Therefore, the time for
him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 9
May 1958.  He failed to 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

___SK  __  ___DJA _  ___DRT _  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.




                                  _____Stanley Kelley_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050003940                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005-11-08                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1955/05/10                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR615-368 . . . . .                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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