RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        28 November 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060004710


      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. Joyce A. Wright               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Susan A. Powers               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Dennis J. Phillips            |     |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 general discharge (GD),
under honorable conditions, be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he would like to get his second
discharge changed from general to honorable.  He states that he does not
think he did anything serious enough to warrant a general and not an
honorable.  He was drafted during the Korean Conflict, 25 November 1952,
and served approximately 15 months in Korea.  He was promoted to sergeant
(SGT/E-5) on 7 July 1954.  He was discharged on 22 October 1954 with an
honorable discharge, in the rank of SGT/E-5.

3.  He reenlisted for 6 years and was an armored tanker for the first
2 years and later when he reenlisted they made him a tank instructor at
Fort Knox, Kentucky. While there, he went on a TDY (temporary duty)
mission, with a team consisting of two officers and four enlisted men to
Cambodia for approximately 4 months.  In the mean time, the Army converted
many of the NCOs (noncommissioned officers) to specialists.  One day they
were treated as an NCO and the next day they were back to privates. They
were not happy times.  Through all of this, he managed to receive quite a
few letters of commendation from ranking officers that he served under or
instructed.  That should account for something.  He was sent to Germany the
last few years of his hitch.  He let alcohol and women get control over
him.  He never had any kind of serious charges, mostly missing bed check,
as his records indicates.

4.  He states that his days are getting numbered, that he is 74 years old,
and would like to go to his grave with two honorable discharges.  He has
worked for approximately 57 years, raised a family, never been in prison,
and has lived a pretty good life, except those last few years in service.
He requests that the Board consider his request.

5.  The applicant provides no additional documentation in support of his
request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 15 December 1960, the date of his discharge.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 21 March 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 he was inducted on 25 November 1952 and
entered active duty on the same day.  The applicant successfully completed
basic combat training and advanced individual training at Fort Knox,
Kentucky.  On completion of his advanced training, he was awarded the
military occupational specialty (MOS), 1795, Tank Leader.  He served in
Korea from 7 July 1953 to 7 October 1954.  He was promoted to SGT/E-5 on
7 July 1954.  He continued to serve until he was released from active duty
on 22 October 1954.  He was transferred to the USAR (United States Army
Reserve).

4.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 January 1955, and was
trained as a track vehicle mechanic, in MOS 632.  The applicant enlisted
for 6 years, with an established expiration of term of service (ETS) of
2 January 1961.  He served in Germany from 6 October 1956 to 15 October
1959.

5.  The applicant was convicted by three summary courts-martial.  On 13
August 1958 he was convicted of being AWOL (absent without leave) for about
8 hours on 6 August 1958.  On 17 August 1959 he was convicted of breaking
restriction, on 9 August 1959.  On 28 September 1959, he was convicted by a
third summary court-martial of being AWOL and breaking restriction on
19 September 1969.  Punishment for these violations consisted of
forfeitures of pay, confinement at hard labor for 45 days, and reduction to
pay grade E-2 and E-1.

6.  The applicant served until his ETS.  He was given a general discharge
based on his record of courts-martial.  He was discharged with a total of
7 years, 10 months, and 12 days of creditable service, in the pay grade of
E-2.

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




8.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, 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.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, 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, or is
otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly
inappropriate.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows that the applicant's first period of service from
25 November 1952 to 22 October 1954 was honorable.

2.  The evidence shows that the severity of the applicant's charges, for
AWOL and breaking restriction, for which he received three courts-martials,
were not so serious as to merit a general (under honorable conditions)
discharge.

3.  The applicant served successful tours in Korea and Germany and
fulfilled his enlistment contract.  Consideration should be given that
there was more than a year span between the 1st and 2nd punished
violations.  Given the charges for which he was convicted, under current-
day standards, the applicant may have been reprimanded or even administered
non-judicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ.  It
is doubtful he would be court-martialed for these violations today.  If he
were experiencing problems with alcohol as he has submitted, in the present-
day Army he would be provided treatment and an opportunity to rehabilitate
himself.

4.  The applicant was released early, prior to his ETS (Christmas Early
Release Program), on 15 December 1960, and was given a general discharge
based on his record of courts-martial.

5.  In the applicant's forty-six years since his discharge, the applicant
has worked for approximately 57 years, raised a family, never been in
prison, and has lived a good life, and is currently 75 years old.


6.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in the interest
of justice and equity, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant's
records as indicated below.

BOARD VOTE:

____J___  ____SP_  ___JTM__  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
a recommendation for relief and to excuse failure to timely file.  As a
result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the
individual concerned be corrected:

      a.  by voiding the DD Form 214, dated 15 December 1960; and

      b.  by issuing a new DD Form 214 showing the character of his service
as "Honorable."




                                  _____John T. Meixell___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060004710                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061128                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19601215                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200,  ETS                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |

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