RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        8 March 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040004483


      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             |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Fowler             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Mark D. Manning               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Barbara J. Ellis              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Paul M. Smith                 |     |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 that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to an
honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD) caused him to go absent without leave (AWOL).  He further states
traumatic events occurred while he was serving in Vietnam.  He continues
that he was wounded twice, watched his fellow Soldiers be killed, maimed,
and injured during his tour of duty period.

3.  The applicant provides a letter of support, dated 1 July 2004, from the
State of Wyoming Military Department, Wyoming Veteran's Commission.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 8 December 1975.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 1 July 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 limitations 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.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 August 1971 and
successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training.  He
was awarded military occupational specialty 11H (Infantry Direct Fire
Crewman).  The applicant served in Vietnam from 15 February 1972 through 5
August 1972.  On 1 August 1973, the applicant reenlisted for a term of 6
years.

4.  On 12 April 1974, the applicant was convicted by a special court-
martial of AWOL for the period 15 September 1973 through 8 January 1974.
His sentence consisted of a reduction to the grade of private/pay grade E-2
and a forfeiture of $200.00 for two months.

5.  On 14 November 1974, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failure
to be at his appointed place of duty.
6.  On 9 June 1975, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for
being AWOL for the period 18 May 1975 through 26 May 1975.

7.  On 29 August 1975, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ
for being AWOL for the period 12 August 1975 through 19 August 1975 and
breaking restriction to battalion limits.

8.  On 26 August 1975, the applicant’s commander signed an elimination
packet on the applicant for separation under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) for unfitness.  The reason cited
by the commander was the applicant’s frequent incidents of a discreditable
nature with civil or military authorities.

9.  On 3 September 1975, the applicant was advised by consulting counsel of
the basis for the contemplated separation action.  The applicant was
advised of the impact of the discharge action.  The applicant signed a
statement indicating that he was advised he was being recommended for
discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200.  The applicant
declined counsel, waived his right to be heard by a board of officers, and
declined to submit a statement on his own behalf.

10.  The applicant's medical records are not available.

11.  Records show that the applicant was AWOL during the period 22
September 1975 through 3 December 1975.

12.  On 24 October 1975, the appropriate authority approved the
recommendation and directed the applicant receive an undesirable discharge
certificate.  He had completed 3 years, 6 months, and 17 days of creditable
active service and had 215 days lost time due to AWOL.

13.  On 8 December 1975, the applicant was separated under the provisions
of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200.  His DD Form 214 shows in Item 9e
(Character of Service) the entry "Under Other Than Honorable Conditions."

14.  The applicant submitted a letter of support, dated 1 July 2004, from
the Director of the State of Wyoming Military Department, Wyoming Veteran's
Commission.  He states, in effect, that the applicant is a productive
member to society and regular churchgoer.  The commissioner recommended
that the applicant's discharge be upgraded for his service to the country
after being awarded the Purple Heart twice.  He concluded that the
applicant suffers from service connected PTSD.

15.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to
upgrade his discharge.  On 25 February 1983, the ADRB reviewed and
unanimously denied the applicant's request for an upgrade.  The ADRB
determined that the applicant's discharge was proper and equitable and that
the discharge was properly characterized as under other than honorable
conditions.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, then in effect, contained
the policy and outlined the procedures for separating individuals for
unfitness when they were involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable
nature with civil or military authorities and it was established that
further efforts at rehabilitation were unlikely to succeed or they are not
amenable to rehabilitation measures.

17.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that 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 (emphasis
added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization
would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be
resolved in favor of the individual.

18.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that 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.  A characterization of under
honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s
separation specifically allows such characterization.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that PTSD caused him to go AWOL.  There is no
evidence and the applicant has not provided evidence that shows he was
treated or diagnosed with PTSD prior to his discharge or later.  There is
no basis for this argument.

2.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, it is concluded that all requirements
of law and regulation were met and that the rights of the applicant were
fully protected throughout the separation process.  Therefore, it is
concluded that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable.

3.  The applicant's records show that he was convicted by one special
court-martial, received three Article 15s, and had four instances of AWOL.
The applicant had completed only 1 year, 9 months and 17 days of his 6-year
enlistment with a total of 215 lost days due to AWOL.  Based on these
facts, the applicant’s service clearly did not meet the standards of
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel which are
required for issuance of an honorable or general discharge.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 25 February 1983, the date of the ADRB
action; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for
correction of any error or injustice expired on 24 February 1986.  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

_ MDM __  __ BJE__  __PMS__  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.




                                  ___ Mr. Mark D. Manning_
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040007783                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |8 March 2005                            |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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