RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            06 JUNE 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20050015776


      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             |
|     |Mr. Jessie B. Strickland          |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Shirley Powell                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Moeller                  |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. John Heck                     |     |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 general discharge be upgraded to
honorable.

2.  The applicant states that he should have received an honorable
discharge for his service because he served honorably.  He goes on to state
that he was injured in the groin while at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and was
offered a medical discharge.  However, he wanted to serve and turned it
down because he was not a quitter.  He continues by stating that he was
transferred to Germany and subsequent incidents caused him to experience
pain and problems and was once again offered a medical discharge, which he
again declined.  He goes on to state that he was unfairly singled out and
harassed by his sergeant and his commander, who were trying to break him
physically and mentally.  He also states that he as awarded the Good
Conduct Medal for his service, which refutes the erroneous issues that his
service was not honorable.

3.  The applicant provides copies of documents from his records and a
statement from a retired staff sergeant who asserts that the applicant
worked for him, that he hurt his back lifting a howitzer shell in Germany
and that he had an ulcer and on one occasion he blacked out on duty and was
taken to the hospital.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 19 September 1962.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 17 October 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.  He enlisted with a moral waiver in Memphis, Tennessee, on 28 September
1959 for a period of 3 years.  He completed his basic combat training at
Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and his advanced individual training (AIT) at
Fort Sill, Oklahoma.  Upon completion of his AIT, he was transferred to
Fort Campbell to undergo airborne training.

4.  On 21 June 1960, he was transferred to Germany for assignment to an
artillery battery at Kelley Barracks in Stuttgart-Moehringen.  He was
advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 14 November 1969.

5.  On 8 March 1961, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of being
derelict in the performance of his duties and making a false official
statement to a superior noncommissioned officer.  He was sentenced to be
reduced to the pay grade of E-2 and to perform hard labor without
confinement for 30 days.  However, the convening authority approved only so
much of the sentence as pertained to reduction to the pay grade of E-2.

6.  On 21 March 1961, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of being
disrespectful in language towards a superior noncommissioned officer.  He
was sentenced to a forfeiture of $20.00 and restriction for 60 days
(suspended for 3 months, unless sooner vacated).

7.  On 29 August 1962, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of
willfully disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned
officer.  He was sentenced to be reduced to the pay grade of E-1, to
forfeit $20.00, and to perform hard labor without confinement for 20 days
(suspended for 13 days, unless sooner vacated).

8.  A review of his records indicates that while assigned to Germany, his
conduct and efficiency ratings were deemed to be good, fair and
unsatisfactory.  He was also barred from reenlistment.  His records contain
no evidence that he received any awards for achievement or performance
during his service.  His records also contain no information relating to an
injury received in service or evidence to suggest that he was afforded the
opportunity to be discharged by reason of physical disability (medical
discharge).

9.  He departed Germany on 9 September 1962 and was transferred to Fort
Hamilton, New York, where he was released from active duty under honorable
conditions at the convenience of the government on 19 September 1962, as an
early overseas returnee.  He had served 2 years, 11 months, and 22 days of
total active service and was transferred to the United States Army Reserve
(USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement) for the remainder of his statutory
service obligation.  He was discharged from the USAR under honorable
conditions on 31 August 1965 and was issued a General Discharge
Certificate.

10.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied
to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within
that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
11.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, provided in pertinent
part, that the type of discharge and character of service would be
determined solely by the military record during the current enlistment or
period of service.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor.
Issuance of an Honorable Discharge Certificate is predicated upon proper
military behavior and proficient performance of duty.  Where a member has
served faithfully and performed to the best of their ability and there is
no derogatory information in their military record, they should be
furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

12.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable
conditions.  It is issued to a member whose military record is satisfactory
but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

13.  Army Regulation 672-5-1, in effect at the time, served as the
authority for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  It provides, in
pertinent part, that conviction by courts-martial terminates a period of
qualifying service for award of the Good Conduct Medal.  Additionally,
persons who are barred from reenlistment are ineligible to receive the Good
Conduct Medal.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  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 that requirement.

2.  The applicant was convicted by three summary court-martials during his
service and his service was properly characterized in accordance with the
regulation in effect at the time, based solely on his record of service.

3.  The applicant’s records do not contain any evidence that he was awarded
the Good Conduct Medal as he contends and the applicable regulation
provides that both a bar to reenlistment and court-martial convictions each
serve as a disqualification for that award.

4.  The applicant’s contentions and supporting documents have been noted;
however, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when
compared to his overall undistinguished record of service.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 19 September 1962; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
18 September 1965.  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

___SP __  ___JM___  ___JH __  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.




                                  ______Shirley Powell_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050015776                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060606                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(GD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1962/09/19                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-205/ . . . . .                    |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |ETS COF G                               |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES                  |469/A07.00 COG                          |
|1.144.0400              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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