RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          26 April 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040004121


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Rosa M. Chandler              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Melvin H. Meyer               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Karen A. Heinz                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Lawrence Foster               |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD)
be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge or to a general discharge under
honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he experimented with heroin and
lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) to help him feel better after he returned
from field training and found his spouse committing adultery.  He did not
know what he was doing when he left his unit in an absent without leave
(AWOL) for 6 months.  He was hospitalized for temporary insanity at a State
Mental Institution and observed for 30 days after attempting to stab a
policeman while resisting arrest.  He was released from the mental
intuition and returned to jail where it was discovered that he was AWOL.
Therefore, he was returned to military control at Fort Lewis, Washington.

3.  The applicant also states that, prior to joining the military, he
attended a
3 year military school from grade 7-9.  He enlisted in the military, went
to boot camp and became an excellent rifleman, served as a squad leader and
graduated with honors.  He has been drug free for 1 year and he is slowly
trying to regain some sense of normalcy.  He is permanently disabled with a
broken back and neck.  He believes there are records available that will
support his contentions and requests that the Board assist him in getting
them.

4.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 30 January 1975.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 18 May 2004.

2.  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 allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.
3.  On 20 November 1972, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a
period of 4 years, the Army Cash Bonus Enlistment Option, basic combat
training at Fort Ord, California and assignment to the 9th Infantry
Division, Fort Lewis, Washington upon completion of the required training.
He completed the training requirements, was awarded military occupational
specialty (MOS) 13A (Field Artillery).  On 30 March 1973, he was assigned
to Fort Lewis with duties in his MOS.

4.  On 27 November 1973, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against
the applicant under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ) for having in his possession some amount of marihuana on
13 November 1973.  His punishment included a forfeiture of $40.00 pay per
month for 1 month, reduction to pay grade E-1 and 7 days of extra duty and
restriction.

5.  The applicant left his unit at Fort Lewis AWOL from 30 April to 28
October 1974 until civil authorities at Beaverton City, Oregon returned him
to military authorities at the Personnel Control Facility (PCF), Fort
Lewis.  He was AWOL from the PCF from 15 November to 22 December 1974.

6.  On an unknown date, court-martial charges were preferred against the
applicant.  On 15 January 1975, the applicant consulted with legal counsel
and requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by
court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.
He was advised that he could receive a UD.  He acknowledged that he
understood the ramifications of receiving a UD.  The available record does
not contain a statement submitted by the applicant in his own behalf.

7.  On 16 January 1975, the applicant's commander recommended approval of
his request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army
Regulation
635-200, for the good of the service with a UD.  The commander stated that
the applicant had three AWOL periods, an NJP action for possession of
marihuana and that he also qualified for discharge under the provisions of
chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200.  The third period of AWOL is not shown
in the available record.

8.  On 24 January 1975, the separation authority approved the
recommendation and directed that the applicant be separated under the
provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UD.
9.  On 30 January 1975, the applicant was separated with a UD under the
provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200.  He had 1 year and 7 months of
creditable active military service and he had 220 days of lost time, due to
being AWOL.

10.  The available record contains no medical records and no medical
evidence was considered.

11.  The available evidence does not show the applicant has ever applied to
the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge
within the ADRB's 15-year statute of limitation.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides,
in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses
for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may, at
any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for
discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
At the time of the applicant's separation, a UD was appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to
avoid trial by court-martial was administratively correct and in
conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the
request was made under coercion or duress.  The type of discharge directed
and the reasons for discharge were appropriate considering the facts of the
case.

2.  The applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain
assistance with his personal problems without committing the misconduct
that led to the separation action under review.

3.  This agency is not an investigative agency, nor does it have the
resources to research or locate civilian records.

4.  Even though no medical records are available, there is also no evidence
that indicates the applicant was temporarily insane at the time of
separation.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 30 January 1975; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
29 January 1978.  However, the applicant did not file within the 3-year
statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or
evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
failure to timely file in this case.



BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__mhm___  __kah___  __lf____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.



                                  Melvin H. Meyer
            ______________________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040004121                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050426                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(UD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19750130                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200, Chap 10                      |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |A70.00                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.7000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]