BOARD DATE:	  18 October 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120007482 


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 a general discharge.  He further requests, in effect, correction of his Social Security number (SSN) on his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) from "xxx-xx-xx37" to "xxx-xx-xx78."

2.  The applicant states his SSN is incorrectly shown on his DD Form 214.  He has supplied documentation that has the correct SSN on it.  A veteran's advocate noticed his SSN was wrong.  From 24 June to 11 July 1965 and from 12 July to 24 September 1965 he was in the brig and he was not absent without leave (AWOL) as stated on his DD Form 214.  He would also like to have his undesirable discharge upgraded to a general discharge.  He is trying to obtain an identification card so he can obtain a driver's license and social security card since he has none.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 and a Blossom South Nursing and Rehabilitation Fact Sheet.

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 enlisted in the Regular Army (RA), in pay grade E-1, on 2 July 1964 for a period of 3 years.  He completed training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 11C (Infantry Indirect Fire Crewman).  He was advanced to pay grade E-3 on 4 March 1965. 

3.  At the time of enlistment he was assigned and identified by a service number that began with the prefix "RA."  His record contains a:

* DD Form 4 (Enlistment Record - Armed Forces of the United States), dated 2 July 1964, that does not list an SSN
* DA Form 41 (Record of Emergency Data), dated 2 July 1964, that lists in item 7 (SSN) the entry "None"
* DA Form 24 (Service Record) for the period 2 July 1964 through
5 October 1965 that shows the same SSN as shown on his DD Form 214 that was corrected by a pen and ink correction to show the same SSN he claims is correct
* DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) that shows the same SSN markings as shown on his DA Form 24

4.  On 27 March 1965, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being AWOL on 26 March 1965.  

5.  On 24 June 1965, he was convicted by a special court-martial of one specification each of the following offenses on 3 May 1965:

* leaving his sentinel post before being properly relieved
* wrongfully appropriating a 1/4 ton truck, of a value of $2,860.00, the military property of the United States
* damaging through neglect by wrecking a 1/4 ton truck, the military property of the United States

6.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months, a forfeiture of $55.00 pay per month for 6 months, and a reduction to private (PV1)/E-1.  His sentence was approved on 12 July 1965.

7.  On 2 July 1965, the applicant's company commander stated the applicant should be discharged from active service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness) for the following reasons:

	a.  The applicant had been a below average Soldier on the job and his recent actions make him one of the worse.  The applicant has not maintained his uniform and field equipment in a proper state of affair and his regard for government property had been sorely lacking.

	b.  While awaiting trial by court-martial for stealing a jeep and wrecking it after absenting himself without authority from his guard post he got into more trouble.  Three days before his trial, the applicant stole a fragmentation hand grenade from the unit ammunition dump and hid it in his room.  Even after confessing to the theft he would not explain why he took the grenade that made one doubt his trustworthiness even more.

	c.  The applicant was transferred to another platoon in the unit when attempts to straighten him out proved futile.  His job performance in the new platoon did not improve and counseling sessions seemed to have little, if any, effect.  The applicant had proven to the noncommissioned and commissioned officers of the unit that he would not be a good Soldier and he could not be trusted, even to the point of stealing dangerous weapons from troop basic loads.  He would never be a credit to his country, that unit or himself, and he should be eliminated from the service.

8.  On 15 July 1965, after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged the separation recommendation under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-208.  He acknowledged that he understood he could be issued an undesirable discharge and that such discharge will be under conditions other than honorable; that as a result of such discharge he may be deprived of any or all rights as a veteran under both Federal and State laws; and that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life in situations where the type of service rendered in any branch of the Armed Forces or the type of discharge received there-from may have a bearing.  He waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

9.  On 26 July 1965, the applicant's immediate and intermediate commanders recommended the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.

10.  On 18 August 1965, the applicant underwent a psychiatric examination in view of consideration for separation from the service.  No psychiatric illness was found.

11.  On 4 September 1965, the separation authority, a lieutenant general, approved the applicant's discharge action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

12.  On 24 September 1965, the unexecuted portion of the sentence to confinement at hard labor for 6 months was remitted.

13.  Accordingly, on 5 October 1965, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 with an undesirable discharge.  He completed 1 year and 1 day of total active service.  Item 32 (Remarks) of his
DD Form 214 shows the entry:

* 93 days of time lost under 10 USC 972 (Title 10, U.S. Code, section 972) from 24 June through 11 July 1965; 12 July through 24 September 1965
* SSAN:  xxx-xx-xx37

14.  He provides a Blossom South Nursing and Rehabilitation Fact Sheet, dated 1 December 2011, that shows his SSN as"xxx-xx-xx78."

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

16.  Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  The regulation stated that individuals would be discharged by reason of unfitness with an undesirable discharge, unless the particular circumstances in a given case warranted a general or honorable discharge.

17.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, set forth the basic policies and procedures for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Paragraph 1-9d stated an honorable discharge was a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally 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.

	b.  Paragraph 1-9e stated a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

18.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Personnel Separations - Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribed the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army.  It established standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It stated for item 32 will be used to complete entries too long for their respective blocks.  It further states for enlisted personnel, the following entries will be made in item 32, when applicable:

* If the individual lost any time prior to normal ETS as indicated in section 6, DA Form 24, enter the total days lost with inclusive dates.  Example:  "4 days lost under 10 USC 972 from 10 Nov 58 thru 13 Nov 58."
* Transcribe SSAN from DA Form 24 in the following manner:  "SSAN:  xxxx-xx-xxxx"

19.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 972 covers the effect of time lost.  It states time lost for a member of an armed force who:

	a.  deserts;

	b.  is absent from his/her organization, station, or duty for more than 1 day without proper authority, as determined by competent authority;

	c.  is confined by military or civilian authorities for more than 1 day in connection with a trial, whether before, during, or after the trial; or

	d.  is unable for more than 1 day, as determined by competent authority, to perform his duties because of intemperate use of drugs or alcoholic liquor, or because of disease or injury resulting from his/her misconduct; is liable, after his/her return to full duty, to serve for a period that, when added to the period that he/she served before his/her absence from duty, amounts to the term for which he/she was enlisted or inducted.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record does not identify the SSN the applicant had when he enlisted in the RA on 2 July 1964.  At the time, he was assigned and identified throughout his military service with an Army service number.  He was discharged 

on 5 October 1965.  He was issued a DD Form 214 showing his SSN as
"xxx-xx-xx37.  The DA Form 24 and DA Form 20 contained in his military personnel record shows the SSN annotated with corrections to show the SSN he claims is correct.  Therefore, it would be appropriate at this time to correct his DD Form 214 to show his SSN as corrected on his DA Form 24 and DA Form 20.

2.  His contentions concerning his discharge were carefully considered.  He has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument that shows his separation action was inequitable or unjust.  The evidence shows his misconduct diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an upgrade of his discharge.  He was properly discharged and he has not shown otherwise.

3.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it appears his administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors that would have jeopardized his rights.  He was properly discharged in accordance with pertinent regulations with due process.

4.  The evidence of further record shows he was placed in confinement on
24 June through 11 July 1965 (post-trial sentence) and continuing on 12 July 1965, the date his court-martial sentence was approved until his released from confinement on 24 September 1965 upon remission of the unexecuted portion of his sentence to confinement to 6 months.  As such, this is time lost by reason of confinement under the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 972.  There is no evidence of record and he has provided no evidence to show the entry the time lost entry in item 32 of his DD Form 214 was in error.

5.  His desire to have his discharge upgraded for the purpose of obtaining an identification card, driver's license, and social security card is acknowledged.  However, the ABCMR does not grant relief solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for other programs or benefits.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

__x___  ___x_____  ____x____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by deleting from item 32 of his DD Form 214 the current SSN entry and replacing it with the SSN as shown on his DA Form 24 and DA Form 20.

2.  The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to upgrading his undesirable discharge to an honorable or a general discharge.



      _________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)                                         AR20120007482



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120007482



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1