IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  10 January 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110012807 


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 upgrade of his undesirable discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states:

* He served almost 6 years in the Army and he was allowed to reenlist
* On his second enlistment he developed a serious drinking problem which caused him to miss formations and work assignments
* Otherwise he was never in trouble or a discipline problem
* Due to multiple charges of being absent without leave (AWOL) he was discharged with an undesirable discharge
* After he was discharged he received treatment for alcoholism
* For the past 55 years he has led a sober and honorable life
* He married, had children, worked steadily, and volunteered in the church, community fire center, and for Easter Seals
* He wants to be buried at the Indiantown Gap National Cemetery

3.  The applicant provides:

* DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States) for the period ending 17 January 1956
* Letters from a parish member and employer
* Letter from the Middletown Police Department
* Credit report

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 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 to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.

3.  His DD Form 214 for the period ending 17 January 1956 shows, after completing 3 years of active service in the Regular Army, he reenlisted on 
18 September 1953 for a period of 3 years.  He served as a light weapons infantryman.

4.  The facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not contained in the available records.  However, his DD Form 214 for the period ending 
17 January 1956 shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Enlisted Men – Discharge – Unfitness) with an undesirable discharge

5.  There is no evidence of record and the applicant did not provide any evidence that shows he was diagnosed with alcohol abuse or dependency prior to his discharge.

6.  The available record contains an administrative decision from the Veterans Administration Regional Office, NJ, that was approved on 5 October 1966.  The decision states:

	a.  the applicant was discharged on 17 January 1956 with an undesirable discharge in accordance with the orders of a Board of Officers.


	b.  his service record indicates that during 1954 and 1955 he had not less than 8 periods of AWOL and he had been convicted by special and summary courts-martial for 6 different periods of AWOL.

	c.  testimony before the Board of Officers show the applicant had indicated a desire to get out of the service.  He made no statements in his own behalf.

	d.  medical evidence indicates he had no treatment during his period of active duty and there was no existing mental condition.

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

8.  He provided letters from a parish member and employer.  He also provided a credit report and information from the Middletown Police Department which states he does not have a criminal history.

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 would be furnished.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) 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.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  He contends his serious drinking problem caused his misconduct.  However, there is no evidence of record and he did not provide any evidence that shows he was diagnosed with alcohol abuse or dependency prior to his discharge.
2.  Good post-service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a discharge.

3.  The 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 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.

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)                                         AR20110012807



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110012807



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1