RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        12 January 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050006899


      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. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Rodney E. Barber              |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Rea M. Nuppenau               |     |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, his undesirable discharge,
characterized as under other than honorable conditions, be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his conduct prior to his military
service and after his military service warrants an upgrade of his
discharge.

3.  The applicant provided three letters of reference and a two-page self-
authored statement in support of this application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 12 April 1957.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 3 May 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 are not available 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.  However, there were
sufficient documents remaining in a reconstructed record

4.  The applicant’s record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 16
January 1955, at the age of 17, with parental consent.  He completed basic
combat training and advanced individual training.  He was trained in,
awarded, and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 111.07 (Light
Weapons Infantryman) and the highest rank he attained while serving on
active duty was private/pay grade E-2.

5.  The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement or service warranting special recognition.

6.  On 27 October 1955, a summary court-martial convicted the applicant of
failure to obey a lawful order on 13 October 1955.  The resultant sentence
was forfeiture of $50.00 pay per month for one month.

7.  On 16 December 1955, a summary court-martial convicted the applicant of
being drunk and disorderly in a public place.  The resultant sentence was
forfeiture of $60.00 pay per month for one month.

8.  On 13 December 1956, a summary court-martial convicted the applicant of
operating a vehicle in a reckless manner.  The resultant sentence was
forfeiture of $30.00 pay per month for one month.

9.  On 28 February 1957, a special court-martial convicted the applicant of
operating a motor vehicle while drunk, breaking restriction, and operating
a vehicle without a motor vehicle license.  The resultant sentence included
confinement at hard labor for three months and forfeiture of $65.00 per
month for three months.

10.  On 11 March 1957, the applicant's commander recommended the applicant
appear before a board of officers to determine whether or not he should be
discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 (Personnel
Separations) for undesirable traits of character manifested by numerous
offenses.

11.  The Board of Officers findings show that after careful consideration
of the evidence presented, the applicant had undesirable traits of
character manifested by numerous offenses.  These findings were forwarded
to the separation approval authority.

12.  On 2 April 1957, the separation authority directed the applicant’s
separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for frequent
incidents of a discreditable nature and that he receive an Undesirable
Discharge Certificate.  On 12 April 1957, the applicant was discharged
accordingly.  The DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of
Transfer or Discharge) issued to him at the time, confirms the applicant
completed a total of 2 years, 1 month, and 10 days of creditable active
military service and that he accrued a total of 52 days of time lost due to
AWOL.

13.  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 a self-authored statement which essentially
stated he was young and immature at the time of his military service.   He
continued that he only joined the military because his family's resources
were minimal and he sought an education through the G.I. Bill.

14.  The applicant further states that being in the service helped him
become a more responsible and respectful citizen but his time in the
service was cut short by his disciplinary actions.

15.  He concludes that he is a decent citizen who is deserving of an
honorable discharge.

16.  The applicant provided three letters of reference each of which
essentially states the applicant is a responsible, respectful, and
deserving of an honorable discharge.

17.  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.

18.  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.

19.  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 discharge should be upgraded because of
his outstanding post-service accomplishments.

2.  Records show that the applicant was 17 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.

3.  The applicant's separation processing was accomplished in accordance
with the applicable regulation in effect at the time, all requirements of
law and regulation were met, the rights of the applicant were fully
protected throughout the discharge process, and his discharge accurately
reflects his overall record of undistinguished service.

7.  The applicant’s record reveals an extensive disciplinary history that
included three summary court-martial convictions, one special court-martial
conviction, and 52 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.  His extensive instances of misconduct also renders his
service unsatisfactory. Therefore, he is not entitled to either an
honorable discharge or a general discharge.

9.  The applicant's contentions regarding his post service achievements and
conduct were considered.  However, good post service conduct alone is not a
basis for upgrading a discharge.

10.  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.

11.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 12 April 1957; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 11 April 1960.  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

_LDS __  _RMN____  _REB___  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.




                                     __Linda D. Simmons__
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050006899                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/01/12                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1957/04/12                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-208 . . . . .                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |unfitness                               |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schneider                           |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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