RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        1 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040011767


      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. Judy L. Blanchard             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Stanley Kelley                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Barbara J. Ellis              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |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 discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was very young and foolish;
that his adopted father died and that he was in a bad relationship.  He
went absent without leave (AWOL) as though he was never in the service.  He
attended college and eventually realized his foolishness and returned to be
discharged.  His dreams of becoming an upstanding citizen have been
crushed.  He states, that he is now a father of two and very patriotic and
wishes he had the chance to go back and serve.  He will accept any decision
that is made.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged (error or
injustice) which occurred on 5 April 1988, the date he was separated from
active duty.  The application submitted in this case is dated 8 December
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 on
9 October 1979, at the time of his enlistment he was 22 years old.  He
completed the required training and was awarded military occupational
specialty 51B10 (Carpentry & Masonry Specialist).

4.  On 21 February 1980, the applicant was reported for being absent
without leave (AWOL).  He was returned to military control on 12 March
1980.  The applicant’s record does not indicate that he was punished for
the AWOL offense.

5.  On 15 September 1980, the applicant again was reported for being AWOL.
He was returned to military control on 25 January 1988.
6.  On 26 January 1988, the applicant elected not to undergo a medical
examination.

7.  On 28 January 1988, court-martial charges were preferred against the
applicant for being AWOL from 15 April 1980 to 26 January 1988.

8.  On 1 February 1988, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was
advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, the effects of
a discharge Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) and of the rights
available to him.  The applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the
good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request for
discharge, he acknowledged that he was guilty of the charge against him or
of a lesser included offense therein contained which also authorizes the
imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He further stated
that under no circumstances did he desire further rehabilitation, for he
had no desire to perform further military service.  He also stated his
understanding 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.  He further indicated that he understood that
he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of an
UOTHC.

9.  On 12 February 1988, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
request for discharge and directed that he receive a Discharge Certificate
Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.  On 5 April 1988, the applicant was
discharged accordingly.  The separation document (DD Form 214) he was
issued confirms he completed 1 year and 24 days of creditable active
military service and accrued 2,704 days of time lost due to AWOL.

10.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army
Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-
year statute of limitations.

11.  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 a Discharge Certificate UOTHC.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions of the applicant were carefully considered
and found be insufficient evidence in supporting the requested relief.

2.  The applicant’s records show that he was 23 years of age at the time of
the offense and there is no evidence that indicates that the applicant was
any less mature than any other soldier of the same age who successfully
completed military service.  Also, there is no evidence nor has the
applicant provided any evidence to show that he asked for help at anytime
before deciding to go AWOL.
Therefore, given the circumstances in this case and his overall
undistinguished record of service, there is insufficient evidence to
support his request.

3.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was charged with the
commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive
discharge. After consulting with defense counsel, the applicant 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 and his discharge
accurately reflects his overall record of short and undistinguished
service.

4.  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.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 5 April 1988; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
4 April 1991.  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

___SK __  __ BJE   _  __RTD__  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.




                                  _____ Stanley Kelley______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040011767                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050901                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)          |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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