RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            09 January 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20060008313


      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          |
|     |Mr. Jerome Pionk                  |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Scott Faught                  |     |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 an
honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that at the time he was young and stupid and had
only 10 days left to go in the stockade and elected to take an undesirable
discharge to get out early.  He further states that he is home bound and he
and his wife are seeking help with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).


3.  The applicant provides the results of an examination by the VA
indicating that the applicant needs higher level aid and attendance.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 9 December 1954.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 2 June 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 military records are not  available  to  the  Board  for
review.  A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members’  records
at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973.  It is believed  that  the
applicant’s records were lost or destroyed in  that  fire.   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 was born on 16 January 1931 and was inducted on
18 September 1952 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  He completed his training
and it appears that he was transferred to Korea, where he served with
Company I, 27th Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division and was awarded
the Korea Service Medal and the United Nations Service Medal.

5.  The facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not present
in the available records.  However, his records do contain a duly
constituted report of separation (DD Form 214) signed by the applicant,
which shows that he was in the post stockade at the time he was discharged
under other than honorable condition at Fort Meade, Maryland on 9 December
1954, under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368, due to unfitness.
He had served 2 years, 2 months and 22 days of active service and he had
327 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

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

7.  Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel by reason of unfitness.
That regulation provided for the discharge of individuals who had
demonstrated their unfitness by giving evidence of habits and traits of
character manifested by misconduct, which render retention in the service
as undesirable.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered
appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that
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.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore
were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However,
they are not sufficiently mitigating when compared to the extensive amount
of lost time he accumulated in such a short amount of service.

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 that requirement.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 9 December 1954; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 8 December 1956.  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___  ___JP___  ___SF __  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                 |AR20060008313                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |YYYYMMDD                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(UD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1954/12/09                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR615-368 . . . . .                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |UNFIT                                   |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES                  |583/A51.00/UNFIT                        |
|1.144.5000              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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