RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 January 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070011549 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano Director Mr. Michael L. Engle Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Mr. James E. Vick Chairperson Mr. Thomas M. Ray Member Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable. 2. The applicant states that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on a single incident during his 19 months of service. He further states that he was young; that his brother was being mistreated; and that he made a mistake. He contends that upgrading his discharge is the right thing to do. 3. The applicant provides a copy of his Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States (DD Form 214). 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 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 the applicant's records were lost or destroyed in that fire. However, there were sufficient documents remaining in a reconstructed record for the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case. 3. On 8 February 1954, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 140.00 (Field Artillery). 4. The discharge packet is missing from his military records. However, his DD Form 214 shows that he was administratively discharged on 16 September 1955, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, paragraph 3d, for unsuitability as a youthful offender. His service was characterized as general under honorable conditions. He had completed 1 year, 9 months and 9 days of creditable active duty and had 10 days of lost time. 5. There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 6. Army Regulation 635-209 (Personnel Separations), in effect at the time, set forth the policy and prescribed procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsuitability. Action was to be taken to discharge an individual for unsuitability when, in the commander's opinion, it was clearly established that: the individual was unlikely to develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier or the individual's psychiatric or physical condition was such as to not warrant discharge for disability. Unsuitability included inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, disorders of intelligence and transient personality disorders due to acute or special stress, apathy, defective attitude, and inability to expend effort constructively, enuresis, chronic alcoholism, and homosexuality. Evaluation by a medical officer was required and, when psychiatric indications are involved, the medical officer must be a psychiatrist, if one was available. A general or honorable discharge was considered appropriate. Otherwise, return to duty or referral for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 was directed. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall record. 2. There is no available evidence explaining the reasons or circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge. Furthermore, the applicant has not provided any mitigating evidence or persuasive argument to convince the Board that upgrading his discharge would be the right thing to do. 3. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined that 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. ______________________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR SUFFIX RECON YYYYMMDD DATE BOARDED YYYYMMDD TYPE OF DISCHARGE (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) DATE OF DISCHARGE YYYYMMDD DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR . . . . . DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION (NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS) REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.