BOARD DATE: 7 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009369 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____x____ ___x_____ __x___ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 7 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009369 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 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. ___________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. BOARD DATE: 7 April 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150009369 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 upgrade of his undesirable (UD) discharge. 2. He has been told his records were destroyed in the fire at the records center. Therefore, he would like to give some history on what was going on in his company at the time of his discharge. First of all, it should be noted that he completed three years of service. a. From 1954 to 1957, the 27th Engineering Supply Company had very little leadership or supervision and no curfew. Use of alcohol was rampant throughout the company, top to bottom, not an excuse, just a fact. Then, in 1957, a "fresh out of West Point" captain took command of the 27th. The difference was like returning to boot camp. Many of his peers were having difficulties dealing with the new captain. If the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) has the means to check on the number of unfitness discharges that took place during that time, it would show that it wasn’t only him who had troubles. Things finally came to a head; he couldn't handle it anymore. When offered an unfitness discharge he chose not to contest it. b. By the time he got back home, he realized he had made a big mistake by not contesting this discharge. So he collected character references and all the information required to correct his DD Form 214 and sent it to the Missouri Records Center in early 1958. He heard nothing from anyone until 1970 when he received a draft classification card saying he was reclassified as V-A because he had sent in all those letters and recommendations. c. Now he is 80 years old and more than adequately insured. He does not need access to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital benefits. He is and always has been an upstanding citizen, husband, father, grandfather and great-grandfather who has a great love for family, God and country. This is not the legacy he wants to leave and he humbly requests the record be cleared. 3. The applicant provides a certified copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) an original 1970 Selective Service classification card showing he was “V-A” and an original VA file number card. (These original documents have been returned to him; copies are attached.) 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 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 service record is not available to the Board 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, the applicant's DD Form 214 is sufficient for the Board to review his case. 3. The applicant originally entered active duty on 10 November 1954. He reenlisted on 24 September 1956 for 3 years. 4. On 13 December 1957, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208. He was assigned a separation program number of 387. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel having undesirable habits and traits of character. When separation for unfitness was warranted, an undesirable discharge was normally issued. Recommendation for discharge because of undesirability would be made in the case of an enlisted person who: a. gave evidence of an antisocial or amoral trend, chronic alcoholism, criminalism, drug addiction, pathological lying, or misconduct. b. possessed unclean habits, including repeated venereal infections. c. repeatedly committed petty offenses not warranting trial by court-martial. d. was a habitual shirker. e. was recommended for discharge by a disposition or other board of medical officers because he possessed a psychopathic (anti-social) personality disorder or defect, or was classified as having "no disease" by the board, and his record of service revealed frequent disciplinary actions because of infractions of regulations and commission of offenses, or it was clearly evident his complaints were unfounded and were made with the intent of avoiding service. f. demonstrated behavior, participated in activities, or associations which tended to show that he was not reliable or trustworthy. Action to separate an individual was to be taken when, in the judgment of the commander, it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impractical or was unlikely to produce a satisfactory Soldier. 2. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Codes) sets forth codes to identify specific reasons for discharge. At that time, separation program number 387 meant “habits and traits resulting in misconduct.” 3. Army Regulation 15-185, Army Board for Correction of Military Records, (ABCMR) sets fort the policy and procedures for the Board. Paragraph 2-9 provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. DISCUSSION: 1. The Board begins consideration of each case by presuming administrative regularity. 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.  3. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of the request. 4. In view of the foregoing there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150009369 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150009369 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2