RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        17 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050004463


      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. Judy L. Blanchard             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John E. Denning               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette R. McCants           |     |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, an upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his wife left him and he did not
handle it well.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 23 February 1965.  The application submitted in this case
is dated
23 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 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 was inducted into the Army of the United States on 13
January 1959 for a period of 2 years.  He was trained in and awarded
military occupational specialty 760.00 (Supply Specialist).  On 23 June
1959, the applicant was honorably discharged after serving 5 months and 11
days of creditable service.  On 24 June 1959, the applicant immediately
reenlisted for a period of 6 years.  The highest grade he attained was pay
E-3.

4.  On 14 June 1961, the applicant was convicted by a Summary Court-Martial
of leaving his appointed place of duty without proper authority.  He was
sentenced to perform hard labor without confinement for 1 month.

5.  On 29 September 1963, the applicant was reported for being absent
without leave (AWOL).  He was returned to military control on 2 October
1963.  The applicant’s record does not indicate that punishment for the
incident was imposed.
6.  On 20 February 1964, the applicant was convicted by a Special Court-
Martial (SPCM) of being AWOL from 3 to 6 January 1964 and from 7 to 29
January 1964.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 3 months
(suspended for 3 months), a forfeiture of $30.00 pay per month for 3 months
and a reduction to pay grade E-1.

7.  On 7 May 1964, the applicant was reported for being AWOL.  He was
returned to military control on 1 September 1964.  On 10 September 1964,
while again in AWOL status, the applicant was arrested by civilian
authorities, he remained in their custody until 29 November 1964.  The
reason for the arrest is missing from his file.

8.  On 8 December 1964, the applicant was convicted by a SPCM of being AWOL
from 6 May to 1 September 1964.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard
labor for 6 months (suspended for 5 months) and a forfeiture of $55.00 pay
per month for 6 months.

9.  The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge
processing are not available for review.  However, the evidence does
include a properly constituted DD Form 214 that shows on 23 February 1965,
the applicant was separated under the provisions of Section III, Army
Regulation 635-206, by reason of misconduct and that he received an
undesirable discharge.  The applicant authenticated this document with his
signature indicating he was discharged under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-206.

10.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows that at the time of his discharge,
he had completed a total of 5 years and 2 months of creditable active
military service and had accrued 347 days of time lost.

11.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army
Discharge Review Board of an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year
statute of limitations.

12.  Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, provided the authority
for the administrative separation or retention of enlisted personnel who
had committed an act and or acts of misconduct (fraudulent entry,
conviction by civil court, and absence without leave or desertion).
Section III of that regulation prescribed the standards and procedures for
processing cases of individuals who, during their current term of active
military service, were convicted by civil authorities of an offense which
involves moral turpitude, regardless of the sentence received or maximum
punishment permissible under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  A UD
was normally considered appropriate.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  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.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of
the discharge.  The applicant authenticated this document with his
signature.  Therefore, Government regularity in the discharge process is
presumed.

2.  In the absence of any evidence of record or independent evidence to the
contrary, it is concluded that all requirements of law and regulation were
met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the
separation process. Further, the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects
his overall record of service.

3.  The available evidence confirms that the applicant had an extensive
disciplinary history of military infractions and based on his record of
discipline, the applicant’s service clearly shows that his discharge was
appropriate because of the quality of service determined at the time of
discharge was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable
personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  Therefore,
he is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge.

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 23 February 1965.  Therefore, the time
for him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired
on 22 February 1968.  However, 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

___LE_ _  __JED  __  __JRM __  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.




                                  ___  __Lester Echols _____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050004463                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051117                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)          |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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