RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF


      BOARD DATE:         3 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060002325


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James B. Gunlicks             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Scott W. Faught               |     |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, that his undesirable discharge (UD)
of
20 February 1962 be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his discharge should be upgraded
because he felt he was being honest in admitting he had been in the
military prior to 1961.  He claims that subsequent to his discharge, he
started out mowing lawns and then owned a single truck for trucking.  He
then owned a soft ice-cream business and a water softener business.  He
belongs to the Lions Club, where he does volunteer work with mentally
challenged children and adults.  He also claims to have owned a restaurant
and bar on a golf course, a sports bar and restaurant, and a sub shop.  He
also went into elderly care, and has become a respectable and honest man
who has been taking care of the elderly and mentally challenged for the
past 15 years.  He states that he has learned a lot about himself and all
he says is that he is sorry he did not grow up sooner.  He claims he could
provide supporting letters from Doctors, a County Clerk, and State
Prosecutor; however, he is too embarrassed to tell them about his past.  He
claims they know him as a business man and friend, and he does not want to
change that.  He concluded by indicating that for a man who started out
with nothing, he has worked hard and now he is in the upper 6 figures,
which he is very proud of.  He hopes this action will help him restore his
past.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement, separation documents
(DD Forms 214), separation document correction (DD Form 215) and
Congressional Inquiry in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 20 February 1962, the date he was undesirably discharged
from the Army.  The application submitted in this case is dated 13 February
2006.

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 that he enlisted in and entered the United
States Army Reserve (USAR) on 7 December 1956.  He entered active duty and
attended basic combat training and advanced individual training (AIT) at
Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.  Upon successful completion of AIT, he was
awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 120 (Pioneer).

4.  On 12 January 1957, while a member of the USAR, the applicant was
ordered to active duty for six months.  He served on active duty for 6
months until 11 July 1957, at which time he was honorably separated from
active duty and returned to the USAR.

5.  On 16 December 1958. The applicant's record does not contain a
separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances
surrounding the applicant's discharge processing from the USAR; however, it
does contain an endorsement from the separation authority, dated 22
December 1958, which approved the applicant's discharge from the USAR under
the provisions of paragraph 3b(9), Army Regulation 140-178, and an UD
Certificate that confirms he was discharged on 31 December 1958.

6.  On 12 February 1961, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty.  The Enlistment Record-Armed Forces of the United
States (DD Form 4) completed for this enlistment is on file in the
applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ).  In response to the
Item 31 question (Have you ever been rejected for enlistment or induction
in any of the Armed Forces or been Discharged from previous service under
other than honorable conditions, under personnel security regulations or by
reason of unsuitability or undesirable habit or traits of character, or for
medical reasons?) of this document, the applicant checked the "No" box and
initialed the entry.

7.  The applicant's record shows he attended and completed AIT in MOS 111
(Light Weapons Infantryman) at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and the Basic
Airborne Course at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  His unit punishment record
shows that he accepted non-judicial punishment on the following two
separate occasions for the offenses indicated:  13 November 1961, for
failing to report to guard duty; and 16 December 1961, for dereliction of
duty.

8.  On 22 January 1962, the applicant's unit commander recommended the
applicant be separated under the provisions of paragraph 6f, Army
Regulation 635-206, and that he receive an UD.  The unit commander
indicated that the applicant had been discharged from the USAR on 31
December 1958, and given an UD.

9.  On 24 January 1962, the custodian of the applicant's military records
certified that the applicant's enlistment record (DD Form 4) was initiated
by the applicant who stated he had never been discharged from previous
service under other than honorable conditions.  The applicant's discharge
under the provisions of Section II, Paragraph 13f (fraudulent entry), Army
Regulation 635-206 was approved and it was directed that he receive an UD.
On 20 February 1962, the applicant was discharged accordingly.

10.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on 20 February 1962 confirms
he was credited with completing no military service during the period of
his RA enlistment between 7 February 1961 and 20 February 1962, and that he
had completed a total of 4 years and 2 months of military service, of which
6 months was completed on active duty.  It also shows that during his
military service, the applicant had received the Parachutist Badge.

11.  There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 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.  Section II of that
regulation prescribed the standards and procedures for processing cases of
individuals for fraudulent enlistment.  An UD was normally considered
appropriate for members separating under this provision of the regulation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his discharge should be upgraded
because he felt he was being honest by admitting he had been in the
military prior to 1961, based on his post service conduct, along with the
supporting documents he submitted were carefully considered.  However,
there is insufficient evidence to support his claim.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was discharged from the
USAR under other than honorable conditions and received an UD on 31
December 1958.  It also includes the applicant's enlistment record of 7
February 1961, in which he stated that he had never been discharged from
previous service under other than honorable conditions.  As a result, he
was appropriately processed for separation for fraudulent enlistment.

3.  Absent evidence to the contrary, it is concluded 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, and the applicant's rights were fully protected throughout the
separation process.

4.  The applicant's military record reveals no acts of valor, significant
achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  His post service
conduct was also carefully considered.  However, while admirable, this
factor alone does not provide a sufficient basis to support an upgrade of
discharge at this late date.

5.  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.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 20 February 1962, the date of his
discharge.  Therefore, the time for him to file a request for correction of
any error or injustice expired on 19 February 1965.  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.
In order to

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JBG __  __MJF __  __SWF __  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.




                                  _____James B. Gunlicks____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060002325                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/10/03                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1962/02/20                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-206                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Fraudulent Entry                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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