RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        25 July 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050013128


      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. Allen L. Raub                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Peguine M. Taylor             |     |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 discharge be upgraded to a discharge
under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he has tried to live a productive
and honest life while being a credit to his community.

3.  The applicant provides six letters attesting to his good character in
support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 20 December 1965.  The application submitted in this case
is dated
8 September 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.  On 13 February 1964, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army, for a
period of 3 years.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational
specialty (MOS) 11B10 (Infantryman Indirect Fire Crewman).  The highest
rank that he attained was pay grade E-3.

4.  On 8 April 1964, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
for leaving his appointed place of duty without proper authority.  His
imposed punishment was 14 days restriction, and 7 days of extra duty.

5.  On 1 September 1964, the applicant accepted NJP for leaving his
appointed place of duty without proper authority.  His imposed punishment
was 14 days extra duty and to forfeit 7 days pay.

6.  On 12 March 1965, the applicant accepted NJP for bringing a female in
the barracks.  His imposed punishment was 14 days restriction, and 14 days
of extra duty.

7.  On 20 July 1965, the applicant accepted NJP for leaving the military
installation without a proper pass.  His imposed punishment was a
forfeiture of $3.00 pay, 7 days restriction, and 7 days extra duty.

8.  On 15 August 1965, the applicant accepted NJP for the misappropriation
of a government vehicle.  His imposed punishment was 60 days restriction
(suspended for 6 months), 45 days extra duty, a reduction to pay grade E-1
and a forfeiture of $30.00 pay per month for 2 months.

9.  On 4 November 1965, the applicant accepted NJP for being drunk and
disorderly.  His imposed punishment was 14 days restriction, 14 days extra
duty and a forfeiture of $22.00 pay.

10.  On 19 November 1965, the applicant’s unit commander submitted a
recommendation that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-208, by reason of unfitness.  The unit commander stated that
rehabilitative efforts were attempted numerous times; none of the efforts
had any effect in attempting to rehabilitate the applicant.

11.  On 22 November 1965, the applicant acknowledged receipt of
correspondence that advised him of the basis for the contemplated
separation action and of his right to be represented by counsel at a
hearing.  He waived his right to have his case considered by a board of
officers.

12.  On 1 December 1965, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
discharge and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge
Certificate.  On 20 December 1964, the applicant was discharged
accordingly.  The discharge document (DD Form 214) he was issued confirms
he completed
1 year, 10 months and 8 days of creditable active military service.

13.  Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  It provided for the
separation of members for unfitness based on frequent incidents of
discreditable service.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered
appropriate.

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



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions regarding his good post service conduct and
the letters of support attesting to his good character and achievements
were carefully considered.  Although the applicant’s good post service
conduct is admirable, this factor alone is not sufficiently mitigating to
warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

2.  The evidence of record reveals that the applicant had an extensive
disciplinary history of military infractions that ultimately led to his
discharge.  Therefore, given the circumstances in this case, there is
insufficient evidence to grant his request.

3.  The evidence of record further confirms the applicant’s separation
processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.
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 undesirable discharge accurately reflects his overall
record of undistinguished service.

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 20 December 1965; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
19 December 1968.  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

__ALR___  __LMD__  __PMT__  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.




                                  ___Allen L. Raub____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR                                      |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/07/25                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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