RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        16 October 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070007406


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Shirley L. Powell             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Joe R. Schroeder              |     |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 general discharge be upgraded to
honorable.

2.  The applicant states he should be granted an honorable discharge as a
matter of justice.  He was accused of sleeping on guard duty only days
prior to his separation.  Despite an otherwise flawless record, they made
the arbitrary decision to give him a general discharge.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

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 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.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 October 1945 for 3
years.

4.  The applicant’s discharge packet is not available.  His WD AGO Form 53-
58 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation General Discharge) shows he
was discharged on 16 September 1948 under the provisions of Army Regulation
  615-369 in pay grade six (currently designated private, E-2).  He had
completed
2 years, 10 months, and 18 days of creditable active service with one day
of lost time.

5.  The applicant’s WD AGO Form 38 (Report of Physical Examination of
Enlisted Personnel Prior to Discharge, Release from Active Duty or
Retirement) shows he was treated for 43 days in 1947 for syphilis and for
32 days in 1948 for syphilis.

6.  At the time, Army Regulation 615-369 governed the separation of
enlisted personnel for inaptitude or unsuitability.  Discharge for
unsuitability would be effected when it was determined that an individual
was unsuitable for further military service because of any one of several
listed reasons.  An individual discharged for inaptitude or unsuitability
would be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

7.  At the time, Army Regulation 615-368 governed the separation of
enlisted personnel for unfitness.  In pertinent part, it provided for the
discharge of an individual who was unfit for further military service
because of habits or traits of character manifested by any one of several
listed reasons such as unclean habits including repeated venereal
infections.  Discharge, if recommended, would be for unfitness, except that
discharge because of unsuitability (under the provisions of Army Regulation
615-369) could be recommended in borderline cases if military circumstances
and the character of service rendered by the individual during his current
period of service so warranted.  As an example, such circumstances would
apply where the cause of unfitness was minor, relative to the length of
efficient service.  When discharged because of unfitness, an Undesirable
Discharge Certificate would be furnished.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 is the current regulation that governs the
separation of enlisted personnel.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  It is noted that the applicant was separated about six weeks prior to
his normal expiration of term of service.  The circumstances surrounding
his discharge are not known.  However, there is evidence of record to show
that a situation existed that could have led to the applicant being
discharged due to unfitness, which would have entailed his receiving an
Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  In the absence of evidence to the
contrary it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in
accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and that the
characterization of his service as general under honorable conditions was
appropriate considering his overall service.

2.  The applicant provides insufficient evidence that would warrant
granting the relief requested.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__slp___  __jea___  __jrs___  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.




                                  __Shirley L. Powell___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070007406                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20071016                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19480916                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 615-369                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |A78.00                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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