RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	 27 November 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070001949 


	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
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, that his general, under honorable conditions, discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was discharged because of financial problems because he permitted his wife to pay bills.  This was, he states, his fault and not the Army's.

3.  The applicant adds that at his hearing, his first sergeant and his commanding officer advised him he was one of the top five noncommissioned officers in the brigade.  He reiterates he made a financial error.

4.  The applicant summarizes his request by stating, in effect, if the Board checks his records, they will see he served with honor before his discharge and received three Purple Hearts in Korea.

5.  In support of his request, the applicant submitted a copy of a WD AGO Form 53, Enlisted Record and Report of Separation – Honorable Discharge, with an effective date of his separation of 21 October 1948; a DD Form 214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States, with an effective of his release from active duty of 25 November 1951; a copy of DD Forms 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, with effective dates of discharge of 3 April 1958 and 18 January 1960.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The evidence shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 June 1947.  He was honorably discharged in the grade of Private, under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 615-365, for the convenience of the Government.  On the date of his discharge, he had completed a total of 1 year, 4 months, and 17 days net active service.

3.  The evidence shows the applicant was called to active duty from inactive duty service in the Enlisted Reserve Corps (ERC), in the grade of private, on 26 September 1950.  He was released from active duty in the rank of Sergeant First Class and was returned to the ERC on 25 November 1951.  On the date of his release from active duty, the applicant had completed 1 year, 1 month, and 29 days net service.  Item 27 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized), of his DD Form 214, shows he was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge; the Purple Heart, with two oak leaf clusters; the Korean Service Medal, with bronze service stars; and the Distinguished Unit Citation [now known as the Presidential Unit Citation], with oak leaf cluster.

4.  The evidence shows the applicant was again called to active duty from inactive duty service in the ERC on 17 March 1958.  He was honorably discharged on 3 April 1958 in the rank of Sergeant for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  He enlisted in the Regular Army for 6 years on 4 April 1958.

5.  The evidence shows the applicant received a summary court-martial for operating an uninsured and unregistered privately owned vehicle on post on 10  March 1959.  His punishment consisted of a written reprimand and forfeiture of $20.00 per month for one month.  The sentence was adjudged on 23 March 1959 and approved on 30 March 1959.

6.  Section 4 (Chronological Record of Military Service), of the applicant's DA Form 24, Service Record, shows his conduct and efficiency were rated "excellent" for the period 27 March 1958 through 10 June 1958.  His conduct and efficiency were rated "good" for the period 1 July 1958 through 17 January 1959.  His conduct and efficiency were rated "unsatisfactory" for the period 18 January 1959 through 12 January 1960.

7.  The applicant was discharged, on 18 January 1960, with a general discharge, under honorable condition, in the rank and pay grade, sergeant, E-5, under the provisions of AR 635-209.  The Separation Program Number (SPN) applied 

to his DD Form 214 is "264."  The SPN "264" was applied to an individual's DD Form 214 when they were separated for unsuitability – character and behavior disorders.  On the date of the applicant's discharge, he had completed 1 year, 9 months, and 15 days net active service during his current enlistment and a total of 7 years, 1 month, and 15 days creditable for basic pay purposes, of which 4 years, 5 months, and 15 days was active duty service.

8.  The administrative case file prepared for the administrative discharge of the applicant from the Army is not available for the Board's review.

9.  There is no evidence 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.

10.  AR 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.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

11.  AR 635-209 established the policy and provided procedures and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unsuitable for further military service due to inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, apathy, enuresis, alcoholism, and homosexuality.  An individual would normally be issued an honorable or a general discharge, as warranted by the individual's military record.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  All documents pertinent to the applicant's discharge are not in his service personnel record.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant’s discharge proceedings appear to have been conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time of his separation.  The Board is satisfied that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Government regularity in the discharge process is presumed.

2.  The applicant’s record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214, with an effective date of his discharge of 18 January 1960.  This DD Form 214 was 

authenticated by the applicant and identifies the reason for his discharge and the characterization of his service.

3.  The applicant provided no evidence that he was discharged for financial problems or because he permitted his wife to pay the bills.  The applicant's records do show a downward trend in his conduct and efficiency.  It appears this downward trend had a negative impact on his retention on active duty and had been the reason, in part, for his discharge for unsuitability.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show, 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.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_x__  __x ___  __x___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.




_____x___
          CHAIRPERSON



INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070001949
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20071127
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
144
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.