IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  6 August 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140020180 


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 undesirable discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states:

* he feels he should have been given time to finish his enlistment (4 months)
* he waived his rights and was given paperwork 2 weeks later to go home with an undesirable discharge
* he believes his youthful age didn't help him to do his duty
* he understands now what was done over 50 years ago
* he thinks he had a drinking problem

3.  The applicant provides:

* reduction orders, dated 9 November 1962
* DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge)

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 was born on 14 March 1944.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 March 1961 for a period of 3 years.  He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 768.10 (general supply specialist).

3.  On 15 December 1962, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.

4.  On 4 January 1963, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.

5.  On 6 June 1963, he was convicted by a special court-martial of wrongfully appropriating a 4,000-pound forklift.  He was sentenced to perform hard labor without confinement for 3 months and to forfeit $50.00 pay per month for 3 months.  On 6 June 1963, the convening authority approved the sentence.

6.  In June 1963, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.

7.  On 4 September 1963, the applicant's unit commander initiated action to separate him for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness) due to involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  The unit commander cited the applicant's continual misconduct and disregard for the interests of the military service.

8.  On 5 September 1963 after consulting with counsel and being advised of his recommended separation for unfitness, the applicant waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and representation by counsel.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

9.  On 2 October 1963, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

10.  On 1 November 1963, he was discharged accordingly for unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  He completed a total of 2 years, 6 months, and 24 days of creditable active service with 24 days of lost time.

11.  There is no evidence showing he was diagnosed with alcohol dependency prior to his discharge.

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

13.  Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  Individuals would be discharged by reason of unfitness with an undesirable discharge when it had been determined that an individual's military record was characterized by discredit, including frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  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.

	b.  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 contends his youthful age didn't help him to do his duty; however, age is not a sufficiently mitigating factor.  Although he was 17 years of age when he enlisted, he successfully completed training.  There is no evidence that indicates he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military terms of service.

2.  Although he contends he had a drinking problem, there is no evidence and he provided no evidence showing he was diagnosed with alcohol dependency prior to his discharge.

3.  His record of service included three summary court-martial convictions, one special court-martial conviction, and 24 days of time lost.  As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory and he did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.

4.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could have voiced his concerns and he failed to do so.

5.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons were therefore appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant an honorable or a general discharge.

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 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)                                         AR20140020180



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140020180



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1