RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        21 September 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060004240


      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. Wanda L. Waller               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William Crain                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jeffrey Redmann               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. David Tucker                  |     |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, in effect, that at the time he was married with a
child and his family could not afford to live on his salary.  He contends
that he was granted a hardship discharge.  He contends that he would like
to get his discharge upgraded so he can receive full military honors and
benefits.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 26 September 1963.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
27 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 enlisted on 21 January 1963 for a period of 3 years.
While in basic combat training, on 12 March 1963, nonjudicial punishment
was imposed against the applicant for missing bed check.  His punishment
consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction, and extra duty.

4.  While in basic combat training, on 23 March 1963, in accordance with
his plea, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of
breaking restriction.  He was sentenced to perform hard labor without
confinement for
14 days and to forfeit $30 pay.  On 23 March 1963, the convening authority
approved the sentence.

5.  While in advanced individual training, on 6 August 1963, in accordance
with his plea, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of
being absent without leave from 24 June 1963 to 30 July 1963.  He was
sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 6 months and to forfeit $28 pay
per month for
6 months.  On 10 August 1963, the convening authority approved the
sentence.  On 21 August 1963, so much of the sentence in excess of
confinement at hard labor for 3 months and a forfeiture of $28 pay per
month for 3 months was set aside.  On 17 September 1963, the unexecuted
portion of the sentence to confinement at hard labor for 3 months was
remitted.

6.  On 27 August 1963, the applicant’s unit commander initiated a
recommendation to discharge him from the service under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness due to frequent incidents of a
discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.

7.  On 27 August 1963, after consulting with counsel, the applicant
declined counsel, waived consideration of his case by a board of officers,
and elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.  He also indicated
that he understood he might be discharged with an undesirable discharge,
that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under
both Federal and State law, and that he might expect to encounter
substantial prejudice in civilian life.

8.  On 13 September 1963, the separation authority approved the
recommendation for separation and directed that he be issued an undesirable
discharge.

9.  On 26 September 1963, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable
discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness due
to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil
or military authorities.  He had served a total of 5 months and 5 days of
creditable active service with 93 days of lost time due to AWOL and
confinement.

10.  There is no evidence in the available records which shows the
applicant requested a hardship discharge prior to his discharge.

11.  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.

12.  Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  Section
II of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of
personnel for frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or
military authorities.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered
appropriate.
13.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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.

14.  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.  Although the applicant contends that he was granted a hardship
discharge,
there is no evidence of record which shows he requested a hardship
discharge prior to his separation.

2.  Since the applicant’s brief record of service included one nonjudicial
punishment, one summary court-martial conviction, one special court-martial
conviction, and 93 days of lost time, his record of service was not
satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and
performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record
of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge
or general discharge.

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

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 26 September 1963; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 25
September 1966.  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

WC____  __JR_____   DT_____  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.




                                  __William Crain_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060004240                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060921                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19630926                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-208                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unfitness                               |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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