RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        18 September 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070005760


      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.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Laverne V. Berry              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Ronald D. Gant                |     |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 Undesirable Discharge (UD)
be changed to either an Uncharacterized or General, Under Honorable
Conditions Discharge (GD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his discharge was the result of his
failure to adjust to military life.  He states that in 1966, he was accused
of passing or cashing a bad check at a convenience store.  He claims
another individual went into the store and tried to cash a deceased man's
check and the store clerk wrote down his license number.  As a result, he
was accused of the crime and because he was young and naive, he was
convinced to admit guilt and told if he did, he would be returned to his
unit.  He states that six months later, he received an UD, which he is
attempting to get overturned now.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement in support of his
application.

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 applicant's record shows that he was inducted into the Army and
entered active duty on 24 November 1965.  He successfully completed basic
combat training at Fort Polk, Louisiana and remained there to attend
advanced individual training (AIT) in military occupational specialty (MOS)
36A (Wireman).  His record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement or service warranting special recognition.

3.  On 18 April 1966, pursuant to his plea, the applicant was found guilty
of passing a forged instrument in the District Court of Fayette County,
Texas, and was sentenced to 2 years confinement in the Texas State
Penitentiary.

4.  On 3 June 1966, the applicant signed a statement confirming that he did
not intend to appeal his 2 year sentence to confinement conviction

5.  On 7 July 1966, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, by reason of
civil conviction, and he directed the applicant receive an UD.   On 14 July
1966, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 he was
issued at the time confirms he completed a total of 3 months and 1 day of
creditable active military service, and that he accrued 141 days of time
lost due to civil confinement.

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

7.  Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, provided the authority
for the administrative separation or retention of enlisted personnel who
had committed an act and or acts of misconduct.  Section III of that
regulation prescribed the standards and procedures for processing cases of
individuals who, during their current term of active military service, had
been convicted by a civil court.  An UD was normally considered appropriate
for members separating under this provision of the regulation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his UD was unjust and his discharge
should be upgraded as a result was carefully considered.  However, 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 his rights were fully
protected throughout the separation process.

2.  The applicant was convicted of passing a forged instrument by a Texas
civil court and was sentenced to 2 years of confinement in the Texas State
Penitentiary.  He completed a statement confirming that he did not intend
to appeal his conviction and was processed for discharge accordingly.  The
applicant's short and undistinguished record of just over 3 months of
service did not support the issue of an HD or GD at the time of his
discharge, nor does it support an upgrade of his discharge at this time.

3.  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.
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JEA __  __LVB___  __RDG__  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.




                                  _____James E. Anderholm____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070005760                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/09/18                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1966/07/14                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-206                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Civ Conv                                |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.  186  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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