BOARD DATE: 14 June 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120000578 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 general discharge under honorable conditions to fully honorable. 2. The applicant states he was sending an allotment to his wife Margaret for his son's care. He states, “At that time I was marriage to two time.” He also states Margaret was the mother of his son. 3. The applicant provides copies of his DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) to his WD AGO Form 53-55 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation – Honorable Discharge), dated 27 July 1946; two marriage licenses to two different women; his U.S. Coast Guard Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 27 July 1946; a memorandum awarding him the Vietnam Service Medal for his U.S. Merchant Marine service; and a letter informing him of approval for training. 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 complete 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 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. The applicant was serving in the Massachusetts Army National Guard (MAARNG) when he was ordered to active duty in Boston, Massachusetts, on 18 September 1950. 4. He served in Germany with the 272d Field Artillery Battalion for 11 months and 24 days and was released from active duty under honorable conditions at Fort Devens, Massachusetts, on 4 November 1952 in pay grade E-2. He completed 2 years, 1 month, and 25 days of active service and had 3 days of lost time. He was returned to his MAARNG unit. 5. There is no evidence in the available records to show he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of the character of his service within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. There is also no indication of the applicant's character of service when he was discharged from the MAARNG. 6. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 3-7a states 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. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the character of the applicant's service was based on his overall service record at the time and properly reflects the character of his service. 2. Unfortunately, his records were destroyed in the 1973 fire in St. Louis and a determination cannot be made to dispute the characterization that was made at that time. 3. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the characterization was appropriate; there is not sufficient evidence for the Board to determine otherwise. 4. Accordingly, there does not appear to be any basis to grant the applicant's request. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___X__ ___X_____ ___X_____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. 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. 2. The Board wants the applicant and all others to know the sacrifices he made in service to the United States during WWII and the Korean War are deeply appreciated. The applicant and all Americans should be justifiably proud of his service in arms. __________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) AR20120000578 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120000578 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1