IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  10 May 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110022848 


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 1963 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).  

2.  The applicant states he was informed his record was destroyed in a fire at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in 1973.  He requests his UOTHC discharge of 1963 be upgraded to an HD.  

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of the 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 record shows after previously serving in the Reserve, the applicant initially enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 November 1960.  He served for 10 months and 25 days until being honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment on 12 October 1961.  On 13 October 1961, the applicant reenlisted in the RA for 6 years.

3.  The applicant’s DA Form 24 (Service Record) shows, in Section 1 (Appointments, Promotions and Reductions), that he was advanced to specialist four/E-4 on 24 November 1961, and that this is the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty.  It further shows he was reduced to private first class/E-3 for cause on 20 November 1962, and to private/E-1 on 27 April 1963.  

4.  The applicant’s record shows he earned the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle (M-1 & M-14) Bar during his active duty tenure.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  

5.  The applicant’s disciplinary history includes his accrual of 248 days of time lost due to three separate absent without leave (AWOL) periods between 
4 November 1962 and 12 June 1963, and a period of confinement between 
13 June and 12 August 1963.  It also includes a summary court-martial conviction on 17 November 1962, for violating Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) by being AWOL from 4 to 9 November 1962; and two special court-martial convictions on 23 April and 12 July 1963, both for violating Article 86 of the UCMJ by being AWOL from 10 December 1962 to 2 March 1962 and 26 April to 13 June 1963, respectively.  

6.  The unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, by reason of unfitness, and of his rights associated with the action.  

7.  On 19 July 1963, the applicant acknowledged his understanding of his rights and elected to waive his right to counsel, his right to a hearing before a board of officers, and his right to submit statements in his own behalf.

8.  On 5 August 1963, the separation authority directed the applicant’s discharge for unfitness and that he be issued a UD.  On 13 August 1963, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) he was issued at the time shows he completed a total of 2 years, 10 months, and 3 days of creditable active military service and accrued 248 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement. 



9.  On 16 September 1964, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) after carefully considering the applicant’s entire military record and all other available evidence, determined the applicant’s UD was proper and equitable, and it voted to deny his request for an upgrade of his discharge.  

10.  Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who were found unfit or unsuitable for further military service.  The regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities for unfitness.  While the separation authority could grant a general discharge (GD) or honorable discharge (HD), if warranted by the member's overall record of service, the issue of an UD was normally considered appropriate for members separated under these provisions. 

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority 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.

12.  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.  The applicant’s request that his UD be upgraded to an HD has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support his claim.  

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

3.  The applicant's record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  However, it does reveal an extensive disciplinary history that includes three court-martial convictions and his accrual of 248 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.  

4.  The evidence of record clearly shows the applicant's discharge accurately reflects his overall record of undistinguished service.  His overall record of service did not support the issue of a GD or HD at the time of his discharge, and does not support an upgrade at this time.  

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)                                         AR20110022848



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110022848



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1