IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  20 February 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130009252 


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 general discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states he never got in trouble while in the service.  He served with honor and he was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal.  In addition, he never received any kind of negative actions or documents; therefore, he should have received an honorable discharge.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States).

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 complete military service records are not available to the Board for review.  A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members' records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973.  It is believed that a portion of the applicant's records were lost or destroyed in that fire.  However, his partial reconstructed record and his DD Form 214 offer sufficient evidence for the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 June 1948.

4.  His records contain a Clinical Record, dated 28 January 1952.  This document shows that he was hospitalized from 28 September 1951 to 14 January 1952.  The military physician indicated that the applicant was initially admitted for psychiatric evaluation in July 1951 because of numerous somatic complaints and some evidence of being accident prone and later returned to duty in September 1951.  His current complaint was of almost daily headaches.  The applicant was diagnosed with:

	"Psychogenic asthenic reaction, chronic, moderate, manifested by 	ineffectiveness, lethargy, numerous somatic complaints including 	continuous headaches and chronic rhinitis."

5.  The Chief of the Medical Services went through the entire case and examined the applicant.  It was agreed that the only solution in this case was to return the applicant to duty with a recommendation for an administrative discharge.

6.  A Clinical Record, dated 29 January 1952, shows in item 25 (Selected Administrative Data) that the applicant had lost 123 days to hospitalization.

7.  The applicant’s military personnel record shows he received the following character/efficiency ratings on:

* 31 August 1948 - Excellent/Excellent
* 23 July 1951 - Good/Satisfactory
* 12 April 1952 - Excellent/Satisfactory

8.  Special Orders Number 93, issued by Headquarters, 4005th Area Service Unit, Station Complement, Fort Hood, TX, dated 3 May 1952, directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-365 and Department of the Army Message Number 31535m dated 10 October 1951 for the convenience of the government.  Further, that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

9.  He was discharged on 5 May 1952 with a character of service of general under honorable conditions.  In addition, his DD Form 214 shows he:

* completed 3 years, 10 months, and 25 days of net active service with 
2 years, 3 months, and 6 days of foreign service
* was awarded the Good Conduct Medal

10.  Army Regulation 615-365, in effect at the time, prescribed criteria and procedures for the separation of personnel for the convenience of the government prior to expiration of their term of service.  Among other reasons, it provided for the separation of enlisted Soldiers with a physical or mental defect or disability who elected discharge for the convenience of the government when it had been established by proper medical authority that the defect or disability existed prior to entrance on active duty or was not aggravated while on active duty. An honorable discharge, or other type of discharge as indicated, will
be given.

11.  Army Regulation 615-360, in effect at the time, provided that an honorable discharge certificate would be furnished when the individual had character ratings of at least "very good," had efficiency ratings of at least "excellent," had not been convicted by a general court-martial, and had not been convicted more than once by a special court-martial.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge because he served his country honorably and he did nothing to warrant a general discharge.

2.  His reconstructed record is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army.  The applicable regulation, in effect at the time, permits separation of individuals with a physical or mental defect or disability who elect discharge for the convenience of the Government provided it has been established clearly by proper medical authority.

3.  The available record shows he was diagnosed with a medical condition which was manifested by ineffectiveness, lethargy, and chronic headaches to the degree that medical officials recommended him for an administrative discharge upon his return to duty.

4.  He was subsequently discharged on 5 May 1952, prior to his expiration term of service (PETS).  His discharge orders clearly show he would be issued a General Discharge Certificate.  Further, applicable regulatory guidance required that individuals have efficiency ratings of at least "excellent" in order to receive an honorable discharge certificate.  His records show that he received two efficiency ratings of "satisfactory" between the period 23 July 1951 and 12 April 1952.

5.  Based on the above, his request should be denied.

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)                                         AR20130009252





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130009252



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1