IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 September 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150002151 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 discharge be upgraded to honorable. 2. The applicant states that during his three years of military service he only had one minor infraction. 3. The applicant provides his DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the periods 9 February to 13 April 1962 and 14 April 1962 to 11 February 1965. 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 9 February 1962. He was released from active duty on 13 April 1962 and his service was characterized as honorable. 3. He reenlisted on 14 April 1962 and was assigned to the 549th Quartermaster Company, Japan. A review of the applicant’s record shows he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for: * failing to obey a lawful order of a noncommissioned officer (NCO) * failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty * being disrespectful in language and/or deportment to an NCO * being absent without proper pass 4. On 6 August 1964, court-martial charges were preferred against him for disobeying a lawful order of a commissioned officer. He pled guilty and was found guilty of this charge. His punishment included reduction to private/(E-1), forfeiture of 2/3 of one month’s pay, and a 60-day restriction. 5. On 22 September 1964, court-martial charges were preferred against him for breaking restriction. He pled guilty and was found guilty of this charge. His punishment was forfeiture of 2/3 of one month’s pay. 6. The applicant was notified of his bar to reenlistment on 6 January 1965. His commander cited numerous infractions which included four Article 15’s, a special court-martial, two summary courts-martial, and consideration for elimination by an administrative separation board (but retained). He further stated that the applicant had been counseled, cajoled, disciplined and closely supervised, all in an effort to correct his unacceptable practices and make him a decent Soldier; however, the applicant had disregarded all efforts. 7. On 11 February 1965, he was released from active duty under the provisions of paragraph 7, Army Regulation 635-205, as an overseas returnee, and he was issued a general discharge. The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time confirms he completed a total of 2 years, 11 months, and 16 days of total active service. 8. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) requesting an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. 9. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The version in effect at the time of the applicant’s discharge provided for issuing a general discharge to substandard personnel at the completion of their term of service. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The evidence of record confirms the applicant had been convicted by a special and two summary court-martials and had accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ on four separate occasions. This extensive disciplinary history clearly rendered the overall quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. 2. 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 this requirement. 3. In view of the above, 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) AR20150002151 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150002151 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1