RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  1 April 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070014008 


	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.  Rial D. Coleman

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Lester Echols 

Chairperson

Mr. Joe R. Schroeder

Member

Mr. Larry W. Racster

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 discharge and characterization of service be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was young and immature during his period of service.  He also states that now, at the age of 62, he is a husband, father, and grandfather.  The applicant concludes that since his discharge, he has become a model citizen who has never been in trouble.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation in support of this 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 records show he enlisted in the Army at the age of 17, on
22 October 1962 and served until his discharge on 19 April 1965.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training (AIT).  Upon completion of AIT, he was awarded the military occupational specialty 111.00 (Light Weapons Infantryman).  The highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private first class (PFC)/pay grade E-3.  

3.  The record reveals a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on five occasions for the following offenses:  
17 July 1964, for being absent without leave (AWOL) for four days; 25 July 1964, for being disrespectful to a superior noncommissioned officer; 16 September 1964, for being AWOL for three days; 2 December 1964, for disobeying a lawful 

order issued by a senior noncommissioned officer and treating a senior noncommissioned officer with contempt; and 11 December 1964, for breaking restriction.

4.  Headquarters, 1st Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment Special Court-Martial Order 35, dated 21 March 1964, shows the applicant appeared before a Special Court-Martial for wrongfully having in his possession, with intent to deceive, 
DD Form 345 EK (Armed Forces Liberty Pass).  He was found guilty and the sentence was adjudged on 20 March 1964.

5.  Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood, Texas Special Orders 47, dated 
20 February 1965, shows the applicant returned to military control following an extended period of AWOL and being dropped from the rolls of his unit.

6.  Headquarters, United States Army Garrison, Fort Hood, Texas Special Court-Martial Order 133, dated 31 March 1965, shows the applicant appeared before a Special Court-Martial for being AWOL for four days and for being AWOL for twenty-four days.  He was found guilty and the sentence was adjudged on 
23 March 1965.

7.  Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood, Texas Special Orders 95, dated 
15 April 1965, shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for frequent incidents of a discreditable nature.  The order also shows his type of discharge as under other than honorable conditions and that he was to be issued a DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge Certificate).  The DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) issued to him at the time, confirms the applicant was discharged accordingly and indicates he had a total of 129 days of lost time due to periods of AWOL and confinement.

8.  Army Regulation 635-208 (Personnel Separations), in effect at the time, set forth the policy for administrative separation for frequent incidents of a discreditable nature (misconduct).  Paragraph 1c(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel where there was evidence of an antisocial or amoral trend, chronic alcoholism, criminalism, drug addiction, pathological lying, or misconduct.  Action to separate an individual was to be taken when, in the judgment of the commander, it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impractical or was unlikely to produce a satisfactory Soldier.  When separation for frequent incidents of a discreditable nature was warranted, an undesirable discharge was normally issued.

9.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, in effect at the time of the applicant’s separation, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

11.  Army Regulation 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 (emphasis added), 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge based on the fact that he was young and immature at the time of his military service was carefully considered and determined to be without merit.

2.  Records show that the applicant was 18 and 19 years of age at the time of his offenses.  There is no evidence that indicates that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

3.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant was AWOL on four occasions, was disrespectful to a superior noncommissioned officer, willfully disobeyed a lawful order issued by a senior noncommissioned officer, treated a senior noncommissioned officer with contempt, broke restriction, and wrongfully had an official document in his possession.

4.  Based on this record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to either a general discharge or an honorable discharge.


BOARD VOTE:

_ _____           _ ____          ___   GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_JRS_____  _LE____  _LMD___  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.





	___Lester Echols __
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
YYYYMMDD
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.