RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           10 June 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2004100793


      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. Wanda L. Waller               |     |Analyst              |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Melvin Meyer                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Joe Schroeder                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Robert Duecaster              |     |Member               |

      The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

      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 discharge under other than honorable
conditions be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states that he was told his discharge would be upgraded
after 15 years.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 10 April 1984.  The application submitted in this case is dated
3 November 2003.

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.  The applicant enlisted on 6 July 1977 for a period of 3 years.  He
successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training in
military occupational specialty 11B (infantry).

4.  On 14 April 1981, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being derelict in the performance of his duties and 12
specifications of insufficient funds.  His punishment consisted of a
reduction to E-4 and a forfeiture of pay (suspended).

5.  On 17 August 1981, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 24 July 1981 to 27
July 1981.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay (suspended), a
reduction to E-3 (suspended), extra duty and restriction.  The suspended
portions of the applicant’s punishment were later vacated.

6.  On 22 March 1982, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being AWOL for 9 hours on 16 March 1982.  His punishment
consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended), a forfeiture of pay, and extra
duty.

7.  The applicant went AWOL on 18 October 1982 and returned to military
control on 13 March 1984.  On 15 March 1984, charges were preferred against
the applicant for the AWOL period.

8.  On 16 March 1984, the applicant consulted with counsel and requested
discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He indicated in his request that he
understood he might be discharged under conditions other than honorable and
furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate; that he
might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans
Administration; that he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits; and
that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under
both Federal and State law.  He also acknowledged that he might expect to
encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an Under Other
Than Honorable Discharge.  He elected not to make a statement in his own
behalf.

9.  On 23 March 1984, the separation authority approved the applicant's
request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Under Other Than
Honorable Conditions Discharge.

10.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable
conditions on 10 April 1984 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-
200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served 5 years and 20
days of total active service with 632 days of lost time due to AWOL.

11.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board for 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,
submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial
by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges
have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.
Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under
other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

13.  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.

14.  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.

15.  The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to
automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits
when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted
if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason
for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  A discharge upgrade is not automatic.

2.  The applicant’s record of service included three nonjudicial
punishments and 632 days of lost time.  As a result, his record of service
was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct
and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's
record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant a general or
honorable discharge.

3.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial,
was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable
regulations.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 10 April 1984; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 9
April 1987.  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 RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

MM____  _JS_____  RD______  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 Meyer_______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004100793                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040610                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19840323                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 Chapter                      |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |For the good of the service             |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |