RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         DECEMBER 2, 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004102968


      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. Constance B. Sims             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Raymond J. Wagner             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy Jr.   |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Laverne V. Berry              |     |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 general discharge be upgraded to
honorable.

2.  The applicant states that he had a prior honorable discharge and due to
adjusting to stateside duty, his personal problems (divorce and alcohol)
impaired his ability to serve.

3.  The applicant provides his application, current DD Form 214 and
original military records.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice, which
occurred on 27 April 1972.  The application submitted in this case is dated
1 January 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 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 was born on 27 November 1949 and enlisted in the Regular
Army in Knoxville, Tennessee, on 20 November 1968 for a period of 3 years.

4.  On 29 November 1968, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against
him for being disorderly at the Fort Campbell, Kentucky Reception Station.
His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

5.  He completed his basic combat training at Fort Campbell, and was
transferred to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to undergo his Advanced
Individual Training (AIT) as a rifleman.

6.  On 29 October 1969, he was honorably discharged for the convenience of
the government.  On 30 October 1969, he reenlisted at Fort Bragg for a
period of
3 years and assignment to Korea.

7.  On 4 December 1969, NJP was imposed against him for being absent from
his place of duty for 20 hours 3 December 1969.  His punishment consisted
of extra duty, forfeiture of pay and restriction.

8.  On 23 June 1971, NJP was imposed against him for being absent without
leave (AWOL) from 9 June 1971 to 16 June 1971. His punishment consisted of
extra duty, restriction and reduction to pay grade E3.

9.  On 13 July 1971, NJP was imposed against him because he failed to
report to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of extra
duty and reduction to the pay grade of E2.

10.  On 14 December 1971, he was convicted by a special court-martial of
being AWOL from 21 July 1971 to 5 October 1971.  He was sentenced to
confinement at hard labor for 75 days, forfeiture of pay and reduction to
pay grade E1.

11.  The applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation and was deemed to be
mentally responsible and able to distinguish right from wrong.  The
statement written by his commanding officer states that the applicant was
counseled extensively by his Team Leader, Team Sergeants, Unit Social
Worker, and Unit Commander; and by a consensus of opinion the applicant
does not have the ability to perform in the military.  Therefore, a General
Discharge for unsuitability was recommended.

12.  The facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge are not present
in the available records.  However, his records do contain a duly
constituted report of separation (DD Form 214) signed by the applicant
which shows that he was discharged under honorable conditions on 7 January
1972, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability,
due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with
civil/military authorities.  He had served 0 years, 11 months and 10 days
of active duty during his current enlistment for a total of 2 years, 8
months and 1 day of total active service.  He had 137 days of lost time due
to AWOL.  At the time of his discharge he acknowledged that he understood
that he could apply to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an
upgrade of his discharge and that he understood the procedures for doing
so.

13.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever
applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-
year statute of limitations.

14. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  It provided, in
pertinent part, that members who demonstrated an inability to adapt to the
demands of the military and/or who were involved in frequent incidents of a
discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to
separation for unsuitability.  An undesirable discharge was normally
considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and
information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of
record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that
the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in accordance
with applicable regulations with no procedural errors that would tend to
jeopardize his rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge and the reasons therefore were
appropriate considering the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence
submitted or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and
should be upgraded.

4.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and appear to
be without merit.  The applicant began a pattern of misconduct that began
immediately upon arrival at the Reception Station and continued throughout
his entire period of service.  Therefore, his contentions are not
sufficient to mitigate relief when compared to his extensive absences over
a short period of time and his overall undistinguished record of 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.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.

7.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 7 January 1972; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on           6 January 1975.  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

rjw _____  lvb _____  teo  _____  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.




                                  ___  Raymond J. Wagner__
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR                                      |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041202                                |
|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.       |Administrative Discharge                |
|144.0000                |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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