RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            19 September 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20060004195


      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:

|     |Mr. James Anderholm               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Maribeth Love                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Thomas Ray                    |     |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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to
honorable.

2.  The applicant states that he was a dedicated and proficient
noncommissioned officer until a captain provoked him into assaulting him
off-post on the German economy and resulted in his being discharged.  He
continues by stating that he has numerous disabilities and he desires to
have his discharge upgraded.

3.  The applicant provides numerous documents regarding his medical
treatment.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 18 August 1964.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 27 January 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.  He enlisted in St. Louis, Missouri on 23 January 1958 for a period of 3
years under the airborne enlistment option.  He completed his basic combat
training at Fort Leonard Wood and his advanced individual training (AIT) at
Fort Carson, Colorado before being transferred to Fort Bragg, North
Carolina for duty as an infantryman.

4.  He was transferred to Korea on 23 August 1958 and served there until
18 September 1959, when he was transferred to Fort Knox, Kentucky.  On
22 January 1961, he was honorably discharged in the pay grade of E-4 on the
expiration of his term of service (ETS).  He had served 3 years of total
active service.

5.  On 19 April  1961, he again enlisted in Little Rock, Arkansas for a
period of 3 years.  He was transferred to Germany on 20 June 1961 and on 30
June 1962, he reenlisted for a period of 6 years.  He was promoted to the
pay grade of E-5 on 26 November 1962.

6.  On 28 December 1963, he was convicted by a special court-martial of
being absent without leave (AWOL) from 15 November to 19 December 1963.  He
was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and a forfeiture of
pay.

7.  He underwent a psychiatric evaluation on 20 February 1964 and the
examining official diagnosed him as having a passive-aggressive personality
and recommended that because of the applicant’s determination to get out of
the service, his increasing erratic and anti-social traits and his lack of
motivation for help, he should be discharged under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-208.

8.  On 25 March 1964, he was convicted by a special court-martial of being
AWOL from 20 January to 21 January 1964, of being disrespectful towards a
superior commissioned officer and of striking a commissioned officer with
his fist. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and a
forfeiture of pay.

9.  On 26 June 1964, he was convicted by a special court-martial of being
AWOL from 5 May to 27 May 1964 and from 27 May to 17 June 1964.  He was
sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and a forfeiture of
pay.

10.  On 2 July 1964, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was
initiating action to separate him from the service for unfitness under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.  He cited the applicant’s failure to
respond to rehabilitative attempts during assignment to four different jobs
in two different companies, three court-martial convictions, one
nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 for AWOL , and his failure to
respond to repeated counseling sessions by his chain of command, as the
basis for his recommendation.

11.  The applicant waived all of his rights and declined the opportunity to
submit a statement in his own behalf.

12.  The appropriate authority (a major general) approved the
recommendation for discharge on 29 July 1964 and directed that he be
furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

13.  He departed Germany aboard the United States Naval Ship (USNS) Rose on
10 August 1964 and was transported to Fort Hamilton, New York, where he was
discharged under other than honorable conditions on 18 August 1964, under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness due to frequent
involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with military
authorities.  He had served 5 years, 7 months and 3 days of total active
service and had 270 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

14.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever
applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge
within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

15.  Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel by reason of unfitness
for those individuals involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable
nature with civil or military authorities.  An undesirable discharge was
normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no violations or procedural
errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore
were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However,
given the seriousness of his offenses, his repeated absences and his
otherwise undistinguished record of service, they are not sufficiently
mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

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 the requirement.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 18 August 1964; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 17 August 1967.  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

____JA__  ___ML __  __TR ___  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 Anderholm____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060004195                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060919                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(UD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1964/08/18                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-208.                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |UNFIT                                   |
|BOARD DECISION          |( DENY)                                 |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES                  |583/A51.00                              |
|1.144.5000              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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