RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	


	BOARD DATE:	  20 March 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060013347 


	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.


x
	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, correction of Item 3 (Social Security Number) of his 15 January 1971 separation document (DD Form 214); and that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was wrongfully accused, but does not have documents to prove his case.  He claims he did not know of this injustice until he recently received a copy of his DD Form 214.  He also notes that the Social Security Account Number (SSAN) listed on his DD Form 214 is incorrect. 
He now requests that his discharge be upgraded and that the SSAN listed on his DD Form 214 be corrected.   

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice that occurred on 15 January 1971, the date of his discharge.  The application submitted in this case is dated 10 September 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 Personnel Record Jacket (MPRJ) is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his separation processing.  The record does contain a DD Form 214 that 
shows on 15 January 1971, the applicant was separated under the provisions of 
Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of Unfitness (established pattern of shirking), and that he received an UD.  

4.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that during his active duty tenure, he earned the National Defense Service Medal.  It also shows he completed a total of 1 year, 11 months, and 17 days of creditable active military service and that he accrued 176 days of time lost. 
5.  The applicant's MPRJ is void of any documents issued during the period
6 August 1968 through 15 January 1971 that would serve to verify his SSAN.  

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

7.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority, established the policy, and prescribed the procedures for separating members for unfitness.  An UD was normally considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that he was wrongly accused for something he did not do and as a result his discharge should be upgraded was carefully considered.  However, there is an insufficient evidence to support this claim.  

2.  The applicant's contention that his SSAN listed on his DD Form 214 is incorrect was carefully considered.  However, absent any available documents confirming the correct SSAN under which he served, a presumption of regularity must be applied to the SSAN contained on his DD Form 214. 

3.  The applicant’s record is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing.  However, it does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 that identifies the reason and characterization of his discharge.  Therefore, Government regularity in the discharge process is presumed.  Absent information and evidence to the contrary, it is concluded that all requirements of law and regulation were met, and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

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 this requirement.


5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 15 January 1971, the date of his discharge. Therefore, the time for him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 14 January 1974.  He failed to 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.
as 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

_x__  __x_  __x__  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.




_____x__
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060013347
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
2007/03/20
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE
1971/01/15
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR635-212 . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON
Unfitness
BOARD DECISION

REVIEW AUTHORITY
Mr. Schwartz
ISSUES         1.
110
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.