BOARD DATE: 19 June 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130019028 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 that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states that he served 16 years of service and would like his general discharge upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. 3. The applicant provides a copy of his 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 April 1948. He completed his training as a clerk and served until he was honorably discharged on 21 April 1951 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. 3. On 22 April 1951, he reenlisted for a period of six years and served until he was honorably discharged in the pay grade of E-4 on 1 May 1957 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. On 2 May 1957, he reenlisted for a period of 6 years. 4. On 11 March 1963, while serving in the pay grade of E-6, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for gambling in the barracks. He was apprehended by military police for gambling with dice in the barracks contrary to a Fort Jackson, South Carolina regulation. 5. On 25 July 1963, he was convicted by a general court-martial of multiple specifications of larceny and violations of Fort Jackson regulations. He was sentenced to a reduction to the pay grade of E-3 and a forfeiture of pay. 6. On 30 July 1963, the applicant’s commander initiated action to bar him from reenlistment. His commander cited his disciplinary record and stated that he had become a disciplinary problem and was not morally fit to be a member of the military. 7. On 25 October 1963, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions due to the expiration of his term of service (ETS). He had served 15 years, 5 months and 11 days of active service and had 28 days of lost time due to confinement. 8. There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. 9. Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations) in effect at the time, governed the separation of enlisted personnel. It provided, in pertinent part, that a general discharge may be issued if an individual has been convicted of an offense by a general court-martial or two special court-martials in the current enlistment. 10. Paragraph 3-7a of Army Regulation 635-200 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. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. 2. The applicant's contentions regarding his discharge have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating when compared to the repeated and serious nature of his misconduct. The applicant's overall service simply did not rise to the level of a fully honorable discharge. 3. Accordingly, the characterization and the narrative reason for separation were appropriate for the circumstances of his case. 4. In the absence of evidence showing an error or injustice occurred in his case, there appears to be no basis to grant his request. 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) AR20130019028 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130019028 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1