IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 April 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110019821 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 his general discharge be upgraded to honorable due to mental illness. 2. The applicant states, in effect, his medical records were not considered prior to his discharge. 3. The applicant provides: * Standard Form (SF) 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 5 May 1954 * DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States) 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 the applicant’s records were lost or destroyed in that fire. However, there were sufficient documents remaining in a reconstructed record to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case. 3. His DD Form 214 shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 June 1951 for a period of 3 years and served as an infantryman. 4. The facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not contained in the available records. However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under honorable conditions (a general discharge) on 6 May 1954 under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-369 (Enlisted Men – Discharge – Unsuitability). He had completed 2 years, 10 months, and 19 days of creditable service. 5. He provided an SF 88, dated 5 May 1954, which shows: * he had a nervous condition for 5 months in April 1953 * he had no complaints of a medical nature at time of this examination * there were no disqualifying mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-450 (Personnel: Separation for Physical Disability) * he was able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right * he was found qualified for transfer 6. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 7. Army Regulation 615-369 (Discharge – Inaptitude or Unsuitability), in effect at the time, provided guidance for the separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability based on a demonstrated lack of adaptability for military service and required action by a board of officers. The individual could receive an honorable or general discharge when discharge was recommended under this regulation. 8. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets forth the basic policy for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant requests his discharge be upgraded to honorable due to mental illness. 2. It is noted the SF 88 provided by the applicant indicates he had a nervous condition for 5 months in April 1953 but this medical record also states he had no disqualifying mental defects to warrant a discharge for physical disability on 5 May 1954. 3. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed the applicant's separation was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. Without having the discharge packet to consider, it is presumed his characterization of service was commensurate with his overall record of service. 4. 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 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) AR20110019821 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110019821 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1