RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        5 December 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060005795


      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:

|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr.        |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Donald Steenfott              |     |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),
characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), be upgraded
to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the supporting documents
submitted show his post service conduct and accomplishments are
sufficiently creditable to warrant the Board's clemency relief with an
upgrade of his characterization of service.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or
Discharge); a copy of his marriage license; and a copy of a letter from his
pastor, from his wife, and the Human Resource Manager, in support of his
request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 25 August 1961, the date of his discharge.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 17 April 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 March
1959.  The applicant successfully completed basic combat training at Fort
Leonard Wood, Missouri, and advanced individual training at Fort Sill,
Oklahoma. On completion of his advanced training, he was awarded the
military occupational specialty (MOS) 141, Light and Medium Field Artillery
Crewman.
He was advanced to pay grade E-4 effective 19 May 1960.

4.  In July 1961, the applicant was arrested and charged by civil
authorities of conjoint robbery, in Comanche County, Oklahoma.  He was
released to the custody of civil authorities on 31 July 1961.  He was
returned to military control on 8 August 1961.

5.  On 8 August 1961, the applicant was found guilty of a crime of conjoint
robbery.  He was convicted by a civilian court and sentenced to 5 years in
the State Penitentiary.  It was further ordered by the court that the
applicant's sentence herein be suspended during his good behavior.

6.  On 8 August 1961, the applicant's commander recommended that the
applicant be separated from the service, under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-206, for his civil court conviction, with an UD.  He based
his recommendation on the applicant's civil offense and disposition of his
conjoint robbery.  He elected not to appeal his 5-year suspended sentence.

7.  Section 6 (Time Lost), of his DA Form 24 (Service Record), shows he had
11 days of lost time due to confinement.

8.  On 18 August 1961, the approval authority directed that the applicant
be separated and issued an UD.  The applicant was discharged on 25 August
1961, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to his civil
court conviction.  He had a total of 2 years, 5 months, and 11 days of
creditable service and had 11 days of lost time due to confinement.

9.  The applicant provides a copy of his marriage license which shows that
he was married on 19 May 1963.

10.  The applicant provides a copy of a letter from his pastor who states
that he was a successful farmer and ranch manager, machinist, a little
league basketball coach, and Babe Ruth baseball coach.  The pastor also
states that the applicant's family became members of First Baptist Church
on 1 January 1980, that he remained their pastor until December 1997, and
that they are still friends. The pastor states that the applicant was an
honest citizen and a credit to his church and community, and served 6 years
as a trustee.

11.  The applicant provides a copy of a letter from his wife.  She states
that she has known him for 45 years, been married for 43 years, and that he
has been a kind and considerate man.  She states that they have raised a
family, purchased a small farm, and built a home together.  He has been an
active member and trustee for several years of the local Baptist Church.
She states that he has worked in several machine shops in the area, being
on lay off for lack of work several times, but always secured a new job,
and is currently retired.  She states that the only thing he has been
regretful about is the discharge he received and hopes that the Board will
consider the information provided and find that he now deserves to have an
upgrade of his discharge to honorable.

12.  The applicant provides a copy of a letter from his former Human
Resource Manager.  He states that the applicant had worked for Ruskin
Company from 24 March 1997 until April 2002 as a Tool and Die Maker.  He
had an outstanding work record, his abilities and attendance were both
excellent, and he would highly recommend the applicant for any work that he
would feel suitable.

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

14.  Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 33 of the
regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members convicted by civil
authorities would be considered for separation.  An undesirable discharge
was normally considered appropriate. 

15.  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.

16.  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 the applicant was arrested by civil authorities for
conjoint robbery.  He was convicted by a civilian court and sentenced to
5 years in the state penitentiary.  The applicant's sentence was suspended
during his good behavior.

2.  Based on this misconduct, the applicant was discharged for his civil
court conviction under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206.



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

4.  The type of separation directed and the reasons for that separation
were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

5.  The evidence of record clearly shows that it has been over 46 years
since he received his UD.  There is no evidence in the applicant's records,
and the applicant has provided no evidence, to show that he attempted or
applied for an upgrade of his discharge to the ADRB within that board's 15-
year statute of limitations.

6.  In the forty-six years since his discharge, the applicant has sustained
a       43-year marriage, raised a family, been a kind and considerate man,
maintained employment, and retired.  He has also involved himself in his
church activities by filling a position of leadership as a trustee, a
position normally reserved for the most devout - those who stand out above
the congregation.  He has also involved himself in community affairs
through the donation of his time and efforts as a coach and mentor to
little league and Babe Ruth-aged youngsters - young people who are at a
very impressionable stage of their lives.

7.  The applicant's post service conduct has been meritorious and is
sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his character of service
from under other than honorable conditions to general, under honorable
conditions.

8.  Given the above facts, it would be an injustice for the applicant to
continue to suffer the effects of a punitive discharge forty-six years
after the fact.  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:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_LDS____  __PM___  __DWS__  DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

Notwithstanding the staff DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS above, the Board
unanimously determined during their review that the military records
reflect the applicant’s actual service.  While the applicant may have given
service of note to his community, it does not change his actions during
that period of military service, nor does it have an effect upon his
military record.  As a result, the Board unanimously recommends that the
applicant’s request be denied based on the fact that there is no finding of
error or injustice that would warrant upgrading the characterization of his
military service.




                                  _____Linda D. Simmons_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060005795                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061205                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19610825                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-206/civ conv                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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