IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  30 October 2014	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140005503 


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, the daughter of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests the FSM's undesirable discharge be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  The FSM served in the Korean War.  One night, after his return to the United States, he and a few fellow Soldiers decided to go out the evening before a drill.  The FSM showed up to drill the next day with a hangover and struck his commanding officer.

	b.  The FSM was a good man, with a kind heart, who made a mistake, and he suffered enough as a result of his mistake.

	c.  The FSM was ashamed of his undesirable discharge and talked about it constantly.

	d.  The Korean War was also called the forgotten war and she wants her father remembered.

	e.  The FSM never talked of his service overseas and mentioned only some incidents to her mother which were traumatizing even to her.  The horrors of war weighed heavily on her father and some of the actions of war he was called to do were horrific.

	f.  Her hometown has a memorial for veterans who served and she would like to have his name put on it.  Unfortunately, because of his undesirable discharge, it cannot be done. 

	g.  Her father is also deserving of a headstone showing he served his country. He volunteered, not drafted; he wanted to serve. 

	h.  Her father made a mistake he was deeply ashamed of and felt humiliation for his actions.

3.  The applicant provides a DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States), her marriage license, and her father's death record.

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 his records were lost or destroyed in that fire.  This case is being considered based on the FSM's DD Form 214 and a previous ABCMR Record of Proceedings.

3.  The FSM's DD Form 214 shows:

	a.  he was born on 9 June 1934 and he enlisted in the Regular Army on 
28 January 1952;

	b.  he held military occupational specialty 1795 (Tank Leader);

	c.  he was credited with 2 years, 2 months, and 4 days of active duty service, of which 1 year, 1 month, and 20 days was foreign and/or sea service; and 

	d.  his awards and decorations indicate his foreign service was in Korea during the Korean War.

4.  His available records includes correspondence from the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) indicating the ADRB denied his requests for an upgrade of his discharge on 18 March 1958 and on 8 June 1962.

5.  In an application dated 8 April 1994, the FSM's widow requested an upgrade of the FSM's discharge to honorable.  Her request was acted upon on 17 August 1994.  The proceedings, summarized in ABCMR Docket Number AC94-09221, show:

	a.  The FSM was convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) in September 1952 for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 7 July to 19 August 1952 and 16 September 1952.

	b.  In January 1953, he was convicted by an SPCM for leaving his appointed place of duty.

	c.  He reported for duty in Korea in March 1953.  He was promoted to private first class.  He returned to the Continental United States in March 1954.

	d.  In September 1954, he was convicted by an SPCM for being AWOL from 12 June to 4 September 1954.

	e.  In February 1955, he was convicted by an SPCM for being AWOL from 
24 January to 16 February 1955.

	f.  In March 1955, while in confinement, the FSM’s commanding officer requested the FSM be required to appear before a board of officers convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 (Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character – Enlisted Men – Discharge) to determine if the FSM should be discharged prior to the expiration of his term of service because of habits and traits of character rendering his future service as undesirable.

	g.  The FSM and his legal counsel appeared before the board on 21 April 1955.  The board determined the FSM exhibited habits and traits of character which rendered his service undesirable.  The board recommended the FSM be discharged with an undesirable discharge.

	h.  On 13 May 1955, the appropriate authority approved the board's recommendations.

6.  The FSM's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 23 May 1955 under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 by reason of unfitness with his service characterized as 'Undesirable."  This document also shows he accrued 417 days of time lost 

7.  The ABCMR concluded the FSM's separation processing was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations and that the type of discharge directed was appropriate and voted unanimously to deny the requested relief.

8.  Army Regulation 615-368, in effect during the applicant's active duty service, set forth the policy and procedures for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  Unfitness included misconduct, repeated petty offenses, and undesirable habits or traits of character.  Action to separate an individual was to be taken when, in the judgment of the commander, rehabilitation was unsuccessful, impractical, or was unlikely to produce a satisfactory Soldier.  When separation for unfitness was warranted, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Administrative Enlisted Separations), currently in effect, governs the separation of enlisted personnel.  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 FSM's available record shows a board of officers determined he should be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 by reason of unfitness and issued an undesirable discharge.

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed his administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations at the time with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The separation authority appropriately directed issuance of an undesirable discharge based on his overall record of service during the period under review.

3.  The evidence of record shows he had an extensive history of misconduct as evidenced by four court-martial convictions, habitual AWOL, leaving his place of duty, and 417 days of time lost.  Based on his record of indiscipline, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct also rendered his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, there is no basis to upgrade the characterization of his service to general, under honorable conditions.
4.  There is no evidence of error or injustice in the FSM's separation processing.  As a result, there is no basis to grant the applicant's requested relief.

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)                                         AR20140005503



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140005503



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1