IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  19 May 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100026805 


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 his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. 

2.  The applicant states:

* During this time in military history there was no diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
* His service record will show combat time while serving in the Korean War
* Since his discharge he has turned his life around and he contributes to the community
* He worked for General Mills as a truck driver for 19 years 

3.  The applicant provides:

* DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States) for the period ending 19 October 1954
* Certificates
* Character reference letters from employers

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.  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.  His DD Form 214 for the period ending 19 October 1954 shows, having completed 3 years of prior service, he reenlisted in the Regular Army on 
24 January 1952 for a period of 6 years.  This DD Form 214 shows he served 
5 months and 14 days of foreign service and his most significant (i.e., last) duty assignment was in Okinawa.      

4.  The facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not contained in the available records.  However, discharge orders and his DD Form 214 for the period ending 19 October 1954 show he was discharged on 19 October 1954 with an undesirable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 for unfitness.  He had served a total of 4 years, 8 months, and 7 days of creditable active service with 384 days of lost time.  

5.  No evidence shows he was diagnosed with PTSD or any mental condition prior to his discharge.

6.  The available records do not show he served in Korea.

7.  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.

8.  He provided two character reference letters from former employers.  They attest the applicant was reliable, hard working, and got along well with other employees.  He provided a certificate of appreciation, a safe driving certificate, and certificate of commendation.  He also provided a biopsychosocial questionnaire and numerous Department of Veterans Affairs mental health records, dated 2010, pertaining to sleep group sessions. 


9.  Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  Unfitness included habits and traits of character manifested by antisocial or amoral trend, chronic alcoholism, criminalism, drug addiction, pathological lying, homosexuality, sexual perversion, or misconduct.  The regulation also provided that when discharged because of unfitness an undesirable discharge will be furnished.   

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic policy for 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.  

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  His contention pertaining to PTSD was noted.  However, no evidence shows he was having mental problems in 1954 that interfered with his ability to perform his military duties or that this was the underlying cause for the misconduct that led to his discharge.  

2.  Good post-service conduct alone is normally not a basis for upgrading a discharge.

3.  The character reference letters submitted on behalf of the applicant fail to show that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

4.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s separation was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  Without having the discharge packet to consider, it is presumed his characterization of service was commensurate with his overall record of service.  As a result, 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)                                         AR20100026805





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100026805



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1