RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        12 July 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040009008


      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. Betty A. Snow                 |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John N. Slone                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Shirley L. Powell             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Stanley Kelley                |     |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, an upgrade of his under other than
honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general under honorable
conditions discharge (GD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was discharged for alcohol
problems and was never offered any treatment or help.  He feels the Army
did not want to deal with his problem, and he was unaware he could apply
for an upgrade of his discharge until recently.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his
application:  Separation Document (DD Form 214), Correction to DD Form 214
(DD Form 215), Report of Medical History (SF 89), Report of Medical
Examination (SF 88), Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20), Records of
Medical Care (SF 600s), Record of Proceedings Under Article 15 (DA Form
2627), and Special
Court-Martial (SPCM) Orders.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 14 December 1970.  The application submitted in this case
is dated 24 September 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’s record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 1 October 1968.  He was trained in, awarded and
service in military occupational specialties (MOS) 05C20 (Radio Teletype
Operator).

4.  The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  The record does
reveal a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ) and a SPCM conviction.
5.  On 24 April 1969, a SPCM found the applicant guilty of violating
Article 86 of the UCMJ by being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or
about 22 February 1969 through on or about 20 March 1969.  The resultant
sentence included a forfeiture of $73.00 per month for 2 months and 2
months of hard labor without confinement.

6.  On 25 May 1970, the applicant accepted a NJP for being AWOL on or about
21 May 1970.  His punishment for this offense included 5 days of extra duty
and restriction.

7.  The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows, in
Item 44 (Time Lost), that the applicant accrued 35 days of time lost during
three separate periods of AWOL between 22 February 1969 and 15 July 1970.

8.  The applicant’s Military Personnel Record Jacket (MPRJ) contains no
separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances
surrounding the applicant’s separation processing.

9.  The applicant’s record does include a DD Form 214 that shows he was
separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for
the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, and that he
received an UD on 14 December 1970.  This document further shows that at
the time of his discharge, he had completed 2 years, 1 month and 10 days of
creditable active military service and had accrued 35 days of lost time.
It also shows that he earned the National Defense Service Medal and
Sharpshooter Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar during his active duty
tenure.

10.  The medical documents provided by the applicant chronicle the
treatment he received for minor illnesses during his active duty tenure.

11.  There is no indication that the applicant requested an upgrade of his
discharge from the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statue of
limitations.

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, which 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 trail by court-martial.
An UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate for members separated
under these provisions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions that he was discharged for alcohol problems
and that he was never offered help for this problem and the supporting
documents he provided were carefully considered.  However, there is
insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances
surrounding his discharge processing.  However, the record does contain a
properly constituted DD Form 214 that identifies the reason and
characterization of his discharge.  Therefore, Government regularity in the
discharge process is presumed.

3.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was discharged under the
provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the
service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In connection with such a
discharge, he was charged with the commission of an offense punishable with
a punitive discharge under the UCMJ.  Procedurally, he was required to
consult with defense counsel, and to voluntarily request separation from
the Army in lieu of trial by
court-martial.  In doing so, he would have admitted guilt to the stipulated
offense(s) under the UCMJ that authorized the imposition of a punitive
discharge.

4.  In the absence of information to the contrary, it is concluded that all
requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant

were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the
applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of
undistinguished service.

5.  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.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 14 December 1970.  Therefore, the time

for him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired
on
13 December 1973.  He failed to 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

___JNS     ___SLP__  __SK___  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.




                                  ____John N. Slone________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040009008                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005-07-12                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1970/12/14                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200, Ch 10 . . . . .              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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