IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 26 January 2010
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090014596
THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:
1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).
2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge.
2. The applicant states that he believes he was suffering from what is now known as post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
3. In support of his application, the applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States) for the period ending 17 July 1954 and an undated letter of support from a retired Vietnam veteran.
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 applicants 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 applicants failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. The applicants 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 (NPRC) in 1973. It is believed that his records were lost or destroyed in that fire. However, there was sufficient documentation remaining in a reconstructed record for the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.
3. The applicants available military record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) in pay grade E-1 on 4 January 1951, for 3 years. The record does not show he completed training or was he awarded a military occupational specialty (MOS).
4. The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge are not present in the reconstructed records. However, his records contained a copy of his DD Form 214 which shows that he was discharged on 17 July 1954, in pay grade E-1, with an undesirable discharge, under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Men - Discharge - Unfitness (Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character) by reason of unfitness traits of character rendering retention in the service desirable. He was credited with completing 2 years,
9 months, and 28 days of net active service with 259 days of lost time due to absence without leave (AWOL) and confinement. He was also credited with
1 year, 10 months, approximately 20 days (not legible on the DD Form 214) of foreign service and with Company K, 7th Cavalry Regiment, in Korea.
5. There is no record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
6. The applicant submitted a letter from a retired Vietnam veteran. The individual stated that after talking to the applicant on many occasions he believes the applicant was wrongfully given an undesirable discharge. Having served in Vietnam, it was his opinion that the applicant was (and still is) suffering from PTSD which at the time was an unheard of ailment affecting the troops in combat zones. He requested the Board to award the applicant an honorable discharge since he served in Korea bravely.
7. Army Regulation 615-368, then in effect, provided in pertinent part, the policies, procedures, and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unfit for further military service. Individuals determined to possess undesirable habits and traits were discharged under this regulation. An undesirable discharge was normally issued.
8. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7a, provided that an honorable discharge was a separation with honor. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.
2. The applicants contention has been noted; however, the evidence of record shows he had accumulated a total of 259 day of lost time due to AWOL and confinement. An absence of this duration is serious and there is insufficient evidence to show that the applicant now deserves an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant has provided insufficient evidence to show that his discharge was unjust. He also did not include any documentation pertaining to a diagnosis of PTSD. He also has not provided evidence sufficient to mitigate the characterzation of his discharge.
3. It appears the applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time, with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, Government regularity in the discharge process is presumed.
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
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090014596
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090014596
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009184
The applicant requests the characterization of service of her deceased husband, a former service member (FSM), be upgraded from an undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge. On 14 November 1954, his immediate commander requested a board of officers be convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Men - Discharge - Unfitness (Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character)) for the purpose of determining the applicant's fitness for retention. On an unknown date in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015347
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 March 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110015347 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's military records are not available to the Board for review. However, the records show he was 17 years of age at the time of his enlistment and 19 years old at the time of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110018514
The applicant's complete military records are not available to the Board for review. A duly-constituted DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 18 June 1954 under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 with an undesirable discharge. However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 18 June 1954 under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 with an undesirable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011746
The next day, the sergeant took him off the boxing team. His military records are not available to the Board for review. The regulation stated that discharge, if recommended, would be for unfitness, except that discharge because of unsuitability (under Army Regulation 615-369 (Enlisted Personnel - Discharge - Inaptitude or Unsuitability)), without referral to another board, might be recommended in borderline cases if military circumstances and the character of service rendered by the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019683
The FSM's complete military records are not available to the Board for review. On 12 February 2013, the ABCMR considered his petition for a discharge upgrade but found no evidence of error or injustice and denied his request. The regulation stated that discharge, if recommended, would be for unfitness, except that discharge because of unsuitability (under Army Regulation 615-369 (Enlisted Personnel - Discharge - Inaptitude or Unsuitability)), without referral to another board, might be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074741C070403
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he finished his tour of duty and served 6 months of confinement, as a result of a special court-martial. On 14 January 1954, the applicant’s commander initiated a request to have the applicant appear before a board of officers to determine if he should be discharged under the provisions of Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013335
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 applicants failure to timely file. On 21 March 1955, the applicant's immediate commander requested a board of officers be convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Men - Discharge -...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023449
The applicant states that he enlisted in the Regular Army in 1952 and served for almost 2 years and was unjustly given an undesirable discharge because he was unable to read. Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel by reason of unfitness. _______ _ _ X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130004187
The applicant's complete military records are not available to the Board for review. There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Based on his available record, his service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008071
On 15 July 1954, his immediate commander requested a board of officers be convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Men - Discharge - Unfitness (Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character)) for the purpose of determining the applicant's fitness for retention. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 with an undesirable discharge. The regulation stated that discharge, if recommended, would be for unfitness,...