IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 December 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110012796 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, in effect, reconsideration of his previous request to upgrade his undesirable discharge (UD) to a general discharge. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he was given a UD for fraudulent enlistment, and even though the enlistment was fraudulent, it was not intentional. When he enlisted he stated he was single because he thought his spouse had obtained a divorce; but she had not. 3. The applicant provides four letters in support of his request. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20100027349, on 5 May 2011. 2. As new evidence the applicant provides four letters, dated between 16 and 27 May 2011, wherein acquaintances and the applicant's employer describe the applicant as hard working, dependable, trustworthy, and a devoted family man. The applicant is also described as being an honorable man with integrity and strong work ethics. 3. The applicant's military record is not available to the Board for review. A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members' records at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in 1973. It is believed that his 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. 4. The applicant's reconstructed record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 30 April 1953 and held military occupational specialty 4405 (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic). He was awarded the National Defense Service Medal and the Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award). He was honorably released from active duty on 7 June 1955 by reason of hardship and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve. He completed 2 years, 1 month, and 14 days of active service during this period. 5. He again enlisted in the RA on 2 January 1958. The specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge action are not available for review with this case. However, his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was discharged on 1 April 1958 in accordance with Army Regulation 635-206 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Misconduct), by reason of fraudulent entry with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He completed 3 months of active service during this period. 6. Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, provided the authority for the administrative separation or retention of enlisted personnel who had committed an act and or acts of misconduct. Section I prescribed the standards and procedures for processing cases of fraudulent enlistment. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate for members separating under this provision of the regulation. The separation authority could issue an honorable discharge or a general discharge if warranted based on the member's record of service. 7. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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 available record confirms the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 by reason of fraudulent enlistment. In connection with such a discharge, there must be evidence the applicant fraudulently entered military service. In the absence of information to the contrary, it is also must be presumed his separation processing was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights and the type of discharge directed and the reason for separation were appropriate. 2. Although the applicant's post-service conduct may be noteworthy, it does not mitigate the fact that he fraudulently enlisted in the Army. 3. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X___ ____X___ ____X___ DENY APPLICATION 2 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20100027349, dated 5 May 2011. _______ _ __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) AR20110012796 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110012796 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1