RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        7 November 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060006574


      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. Beverly A. Young              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Patrick McGann                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Richard Sayre                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. David Haasenritter            |     |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 his discharge should be changed to honorable
because of his perfect record and outstanding citizenship.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 18 May 1954.  The application submitted in this case is dated
24 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 complete military records are not available to the
Board for review.  However, there were sufficient documents remaining in a
reconstructed record for the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review
of this case.

4.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 March 1951 for a
period of three years.  He was assigned to Germany and completed 2 years
and 22 days of foreign service.

5.  On 23 January 1953, the applicant was convicted by a general court-
marital, contrary to his pleas, of assault with a knife on two individuals
and carrying a knife with a blade of more than 3 inches in violation of a
general order.  He was sentenced to 6 months confinement at hard labor and
a forfeiture of $55.00 pay per month for 6 months.

6.  The applicant’s discharge packet is not available.  However, his DD
Form 214 shows he was discharged from active duty on 18 May 1954 under the
provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 for unfitness.  He completed 2 years,
8 months, and 22 days of active military service with 157 days of lost
time.

7.  Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  The regulation
provided for the discharge of individuals by reason of unfitness with an
undesirable discharge when it had been determined that an individual’s
military record was characterized by one of more of the following:
frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military
authorities; sexual perversion; drug addiction or the unauthorized use or
possession of habit forming narcotic drugs or marijuana; an established
pattern for shirking; or an established pattern showing dishonorable
failure to pay just debts.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 governs the separation of enlisted personnel.
Paragraph 3-7a, in pertinent part, states that an honorable discharge is a
separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when
the quality of the Soldier'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.  Where there have been infractions of discipline, the extent
thereof should be considered, as well as the seriousness of the offense(s).

9.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the applicant's discharge
proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 for unfitness,
are presumed to have been administratively correct and in conformance with
applicable regulations.

2.  The applicant's service record shows he was convicted by a general
court-martial for assault with a knife on two individuals and carrying a
knife with a blade of more than 3 inches.  As a result, 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
upgrade to an honorable or general discharge.

3.  Although the applicant's discharge packet is not available, it is
presumed the separation authority appropriately directed issuance of an
undesirable discharge based on his overall record during the period under
review.

4.  The applicant contends that his discharge should be changed to
honorable because of his perfect record and outstanding citizenship;
however, he has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the
evidence of record that the type of discharge issued to him was in error or
unjust.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 18 May 1954; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 17 May 1957.  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

PM______  RS______  DH______  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.


                                  Patrick McGann________
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060006574                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061107                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19540518                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 615-368                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unfitness                               |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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