RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        10 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050006008


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Victoria A. Donaldson        |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Margaret K. Patterson         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |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 his under other than honorable conditions
discharge be upgraded and restoration of his rank back to private/pay grade
E-2.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was an alcohol abuser at the time
of his indiscipline.  The applicant continues that he apologized to the
U.S. Army for the aggravation caused by his actions.  The applicant
concludes he was young and immature at the time of his military service.

3.  The applicant states he provided copies from a Veteran's Administration
claim.  However, these documents were not attached to the application.  The
applicantion did contain 2 hand-written letters from the applicant in
support of this case.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 19 February 1963, the date of his discharge.  The
application submitted in this case is dated 9 April 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 record shows he served on active duty for 5 months and
7 days, as a member of the United States Army Reserve (USAR), from 10 July
1960 through 16 December 1960, at which time he was honorably separated and
returned to his USAR unit.  The applicant's records also show that he was
born on 27 May 1944.

4.  On 13 April 1962, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty in that status.  His Service Record (DA Form 24) shows,
in Section I (Appointments, Promotions, or Reductions), that he entered the
RA in the rank of private/pay grade E-2, and that this is the highest rank
he attained while serving on active duty.

5.  Section 6 (Time Lost) of the applicant’s DA Form 24 shows that during
his active duty tenure, he accrued 163 days of time lost due to being
absent without leave (AWOL) and confinement.

6.  Section 9 (Medals, Decorations and Citations) shows that during his
active duty tenure, he did not earn any medals, decorations, or citations.
There are no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting
special recognition documented in his record.

7.  The applicant’s record reveals a disciplinary history which shows he
was convicted by a summary court-martial of being AWOL for the periods 19
July 1962 through 28 July 1962 and 29 July 1962 through 31 July 1962 and
convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL during the periods 18
October 1962 through 14 December 1962, 15 December 1962 through 26 December
1962, and on 29 December 1962.

8.  The applicant's separation processing documents are not available for
review with this case.

9.  The applicant's records contain Headquarters, Foot Hood, Texas Special,
Orders Number 40, dated 15 February 1963.  These orders show the applicant
was discharged under the provisions of Army regulation 635-208 for frequent
incidents of a discreditable nature.

10.  The applicant was discharged on 19 February 1963 and issued a DD Form
214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).
The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant shows he completed a total of
4 months and 27 days of creditable active military service and that he
accrued 163 days of time lost due to AWOL.

11.  There is no evidence in the available records which shows that the
applicant was diagnosed or treated for alcoholism and/or drug addiction or
that he sought assistance from his chain of command for either problem.

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

13.  The applicant submitted two self-authored statements which essentially
stated he was young and immature at the time of his military service.


14.  Army Regulation 635-208 (Personnel Separation), in effect at the time,
set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who
were found unfit or unsuitable for further military service. The regulation
provided, in pertinent part, that members who displayed undesirable habits
and traits were subject to separation for unfitness.  An undesirable
discharge was normally considered appropriate.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative
Separations), 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.
 Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

16.  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.  The applicant contends that his under other than honorable conditions
discharge should be upgraded and his rank should be restored back to
private/pay grade
E-2.

2.  The applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded because he
was an alcoholic while he was in the military.  There is no evidence, and
the applicant has provided insufficient evidence, that shows he suffered
from or received treatment for alcohol dependency during his military
service.  Furthermore, there is no evidence that alcohol dependency was the
cause of his indiscipline and subsequent separation.

3.  The applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded because he
was young and immature at the time of his service.



4.  Records show that the applicant was 19 years of age at the time of his
offenses.  However, there is no evidence that indicates that the applicant
was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully
completed military service.

5.  The applicant's contends that his rank should be restored to
private/pay grade E-2.  The applicant's separation document and his
separation orders show the applicant was a private/pay grade E-1 at the
time of his separation.  There is no evidence in the available records and
the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence which shows the
applicant's grade was private/pay grade E-2 at the time of his separation.
Therefore, without substantiating evidence, there is no basis to grant the
applicant's request to change his grade to show private/pay grade E-2,

6.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, it is presumed the applicant’s
separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable
regulation in effect at the time, that all requirements of law and
regulation were met, that the rights of the applicant were fully protected
throughout the discharge process, and that his discharge accurately
reflects his overall record of undistinguished service.

7.  The applicant’s record reveals an extensive disciplinary history that
included two court-martial convictions and 163 days of lost time due to
AWOL.

8.  Based on this record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly
does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty
for Army personnel.  This misconduct also renders his service
unsatisfactory. Therefore, he is not entitled to either a general discharge
or an honorable discharge.

9.  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.

10.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 19 February 1963; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 18 February 1966.  However, 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

MJF_____  __LDS__  _MKP____  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.




                                     __M. K. Patterson__
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050006008                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051110                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |15 February 1963                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-208. . . . .                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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