RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         4 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040010624


      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. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne Douglas               |     |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 general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he signed his discharge papers with
the understanding he would receive a GD.  He also states that he entered
active duty in 1967, at the age of 17, not 29 July 1971 as indicated on his
separation document (DD Form 214).  He further claims that he now suffers
from severe medical problems and is in need of immediate help.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 29 July 1971.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
25 November 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 20 April 1970.  His records also show he failed to
complete basic combat training, and was never awarded a military
occupational specialty (MOS).

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 two periods of him being absent
without leave (AWOL).

5.  On 1 Jun 1970, the applicant departed AWOL from his unit at Fort
Leonard Wood, Missouri.  He was dropped from rolls of the organization on
20 Jun 1970, and he remained AWOL for 149 days until returning to military
control at
Fort Bliss, Texas on 27 October 1970.

6.  On 30 October 1970, the applicant departed AWOL from his unit at
Fort Bliss, Texas.  He was dropped from the rolls of the organization on
29 November 1970, and he remained AWOL for 227 days until returning to
military control at Fort Carson, Colorado on 13 June 1971.

7.  On 18 June 1971, a Charge Sheet (DD Form 458) was prepared preferring a
court-martial charge against the applicant for violating Article 85 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice by being AWOL from on or about 30 October
1970 through on or about 14 June 1971.

8.  On 22 June 1971, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was
advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the
maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible
effects of an UD, and of the procedures and rights that were available to
him.  Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily
requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-
martial.

9.  In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he
understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the
charge against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized
the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He further
acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request was approved, he
could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible
for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA), and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran
under both Federal and State law.

10.  On 23 July 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
request for discharge and directed that he receive an UD.  On 29 July 1971,
the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 he was issued
confirms, in Item 17c (Date of Entry), that he entered active duty on 20
April 1970, and that he completed a total of 2 months and 29 days of
creditable service and had accrued 376 days of lost time due to AWOL.

11.  The applicant failed to apply to the Army Discharge Review Board for
an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute 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, 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.  A
discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered
appropriate. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the
regulation provided for the issuance of an UD.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions that he signed his discharge papers with
the understanding he would receive a GD, and that he entered the Army in
1967 were carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to
support these claims.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant enlisted in the Regular
Army and entered active duty on 20 April 1970, as is indicated in Item 17c
of his DD Form 214.  It further verifies that he was charged with the
commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive
discharge. After consulting with defense counsel, he voluntarily requested
discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All
requirements of law and regulation were met, the rights of the applicant
were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, his
discharge accurately reflects his overall record of short and
undistinguished service.

3.  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.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 29 July 1971.  Therefore, the time for
him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on
28 July 1974.  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

___JEA _  __RTD___  ___LMD_  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.




                                  ___James E. Anderholm___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040010624                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005-08-04                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1971/07/29                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, Ch 10 . . . . .             |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |For the good of the service             |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.0200.0000                           |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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