RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        24 April 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060013836


      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. Gerard W. Schwartz            |     |Acting Director      |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Vick                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Gerald J. Purcell             |     |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, under honorable
conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was advised to apply for this
change by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) officer in Martinsburg,
West Virginia.

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 11 July 1961, the date of his separation.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 22 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 record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 30 October 1959.  He was awarded military
occupational specialty (MOS) 510.00 (Construction Helper), and private
first class (PFC) was the highest rank he attained while serving on active
duty.

4.  The applicant's Service Record (DA Form 24) shows that upon completion
of training, he was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, where he served
until his separation.  His record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

5.  The applicant's disciplinary history includes his acceptance of non-
judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on the following five separate occasions
for the offenses indicated:  20 July 1960, for being drunk in a public
place; 6 September 1960, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 2
through 5 September 1960;
30 December 1960, for failing to repair by missing formation; 6 March 1961,
for being AWOL from 4 through 12 March 1961; and 27 June 1961, for failing
to repair by missing formation.

6.  On 3 July 1961, the unit commander recommended the applicant's
discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209.  He cited the
applicant's immaturity and uncooperative attitude as the reason for taking
the action.  The applicant was advised of the basis for the contemplated
separation action and afforded the opportunity to request counsel.  The
applicant declined counsel and waived his right to consideration of his
case by a board of officers and elected not to submit a statement in his
own behalf.

7.  On 5 July 1961, the separation authority approved the applicant's
separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, by reason of
unsuitability (apathy, defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort
constructively), and directed he receive a GD.  On 11 July 1961, the
applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 he was issued upon
his separation shows he held the rank of private/E-2 and that he had
completed a total of 1 year,

8.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year
statute of limitations.

9.  Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, provided the authority
for the separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability based on
inaptitude, character and behavior disorder, apathy, enuresis, alcoholism,
or homosexual tendencies.  Members separated under these provisions could
receive either an HD or GD.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for an upgrade of his GD to an HD based on the
advise of VA officials was carefully considered.  However, there is
insufficient evidence to support granting the requested relief.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant's separation processing
was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All
requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the
applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  The applicant's record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement or service warranting special recognition.  However, it does
include an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of
NJP on five separate occasions between 20 July 1960 and 27 June 1961.  This
misconduct clearly diminished the overall quality of his service below that
meriting a fully honorable discharge.  Therefore, it would not be
appropriate to upgrade his discharge at this late date.

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 11 July 1961, the date of his
discharge.  Therefore, the time for him file a request for correction of
any error or injustice expired on 10 July 1964.  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

__JEV __  __PHM __  __GJP___  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 E. Vick_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060013836                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/04/24                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1961/07/11                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-209                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unsuitability                           |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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