ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  13 September 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20170013888


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

* DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
* Death Certificate for Father
* DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States)
* Letter from the American Red Cross
* DD Form 293 (Application for Review of Discharge or Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States)
* News Release for Veteran’s
* Discharge Certificate

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 

2.  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 AR13946 on 14 November 1962.

3.  The applicant’s daughter states the former service member (FSM) was given leave to attend his father’s funeral and she believes the record to be an error, because he was reported as absent without leave (AWOL).  

4.  The applicant provides:

    a.  The complete packet from the Army Discharge Review Board, dated                  14 November 1962. 

	b.  Letters of support from Red Cross and Veteran’s news release with the information for veteran’s to submit upgrade for an undesirable discharge to apply to the Department of Defense for Discharge Review.

	c.  A self-authored letter wherein he describes his family background and military service.  He explains how his unit did not grant him leave when he needed to see his Father the most, especially after his father had died.  He went AWOL on several occasions, but turned himself in.  He further explains how he was given leave to attend his father’s funeral and he was considered AWOL. 

5.  The applicant's complete military records are 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 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.

6.  A review of the available service record shows: 

   a.  He enlisted in the regular Army on 8 July 1948.  At the time of his separation, he was assigned to Company C, 370th Infantry Battalion, Fort Dix, NJ. 

	b.  He appears to have served in Europe and on return to Continental United States, he went AWOL.  He was apprehended and transferred via Provost Marshal in Munich Germany. 

   c.  On 19 October 1950, the applicant's commanding officer requested a Board of officers convene, in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 615-368 Enlisted Men - Discharge - Unfitness (Undesirable Habits or Traits of Character) to determine if the applicant should be discharge.  The commander stated: 

* the applicant was recommended for discharge because he had proven to be unsuitable and of no worth to the Army since his entrance into the Army
* he was previously assigned to several organizations but has proven himself to be above rehabilitation 

d.  On 19 March 1952, the applicant sent a letter asking reconsideration of his discharge and grant a waiver to reenlist and justify himself.

	e.  The Board of officers found the applicant gave evidence of habits and traits of character which rendered his retention in the Army undesirable, and recommended his discharge from the Army because of unfitness with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

	f.  On 16 April 1952, the TAG advised the applicant his request for reenlistment was not favored or considered.  

   g.  He was discharge on 19 October 1950.  His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States) shows he was discharged in the rank/grade of Private/E-1, under the provisions of AR 615-368 with an undesirable discharge.  He was assigned Separation Program Number (SPN) 78 (unfitness).  It also shows: 

* he completed 2 years, 1 month and 23 days of total net active service, some of which was foreign service
* he had 49 days of lost time
* he was awarded or authorized the WWII Vic Medal and Light Weapons Infantry

7.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB); however, after careful consideration of the evidence, the ADRB determined he was properly discharged and denied his request.   

8.  The Board should consider the applicant’s petition and his service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance.

9.  The controlling regulation (615-368) provided for the discharge of individuals who had demonstrated their unfitness by giving evidence of habits and traits of character manifested by misconduct.  Unfitness included habits and traits of character manifested by antisocial or amoral trend, chronic alcoholism, criminalism, drug addiction, pathological lying, homosexuality, sexual perversion, or misconduct.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined relief is not warranted.  The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered.  The Board applied Department of Defense standards of liberal consideration to the complete evidentiary record and did not find any evidence of error, injustice, or inequity.  He did not provide character witness statements or evidence of post-service achievements for the Board to consider.  Based upon the pattern of misconduct, as well as the failure to respond to other rehabilitative measures prior to the time of separation, the Board agreed that the applicant's discharge characterization was warranted as a result of the misconduct.


BOARD VOTE:
Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	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 the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
	 
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.

REFERENCES:
1.  Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three 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 three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.

2.  AR 615-368, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel by reason of unfitness.  

   a.  That regulation provided for the discharge of individuals who had demonstrated their unfitness by giving evidence of habits and traits of character manifested by misconduct.  Unfitness included habits and traits of character manifested by antisocial or amoral trend, chronic alcoholism, criminalism, drug addiction, pathological lying, homosexuality, sexual perversion, or misconduct.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

	b.  A board of officers would recommend that the individual either be discharged because of unfitness or unsuitability, or retained in the service.  The regulation stated that discharge, if recommended, would be for unfitness, except that discharge because of unsuitability (under AR 615-369 (Enlisted Personnel - Discharge - Inaptitude or Unsuitability)), without referral to another board, might be recommended in borderline cases if military circumstances and the character of service rendered by the individual during his current period of service so warranted.  As examples, such circumstances would apply where the cause of unfitness had been minor, relative to the length of efficient service or where there had been a definite effort at self-control; or where an individual had, during his current period of service, distinguished himself by an act of heroism, which in itself reflected great credit on the individual and the military service.

3.  AR 635-200, currently in effect, governs the separation of enlisted personnel. 

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier'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.  

	b.  Paragraph 3-7b states 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.  

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20170013888


4


1