RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        23 November 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004103997


      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             |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Fowler             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Fred Eichorn                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Robert J. Osborn II           |     |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 her discharge be upgraded from under other
than honorable conditions to a general discharge (under honorable
conditions).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the Article 15 punishment that
she received for failure to go to her appointed place of duty on 1 February
1967 was unjust.  She contends that she was not provided an opportunity to
explain that she was delayed from returning to duty through no fault of her
own.

3.  The applicant continues that she called her commander and explained
that she was delayed at the courthouse in Aniston, Alabama and that she
returned to Fort McClellan only 15 minutes later than her scheduled return
time.

4.  The applicant also states, in effect, that she was absent without leave
(AWOL) on two occasions because her husband would not return her to work.

5.  The applicant provides no documentation in support of this application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an error that occurred on
19 September 1967, the date of her separation from active duty.  The
application
submitted in this case is dated 10 February 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.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant entered active duty on
17 October 1966.  She successfully completed basic training and advanced
individual training and was awarded the military occupational specialty
70A10 (Clerk Typist and Processing).

4.  On 3 February 1967, nonjudicial punishment in the form of an Article 15
was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to her appointed place
of duty on 1 February 1967.  Her punishment consisted of forfeiture of
$12.00 for one month.
5.  The applicant’s records contain a DA Form 2627-1 (Record of Proceedings
Under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 3 February 1967, which shows that the
applicant was directed to acknowledge receipt of the Article 15 punishment
and provide any matter in mitigation, extenuation or defense within 48
hours.  This form shows that the applicant acknowledged in her own hand
receipt of the Article 15 and elected not to submit matters in mitigation,
extenuation on her defense.

6.  On 4 August 1967, the applicant was convicted by a special court-
martial for being AWOL for the periods 1 May 1967 through 19 May 1967 and 5
June 1967 through 26 July 1967.  Her sentence consisted of reduction to
private/pay grade E-1 and forfeiture of $64.00 for three months.

7.  The applicant's service personnel records contain a consultation
certificate, dated 15 August 1967, from the Mental Hygiene Consultation
Service, Office of the Surgeon, Fort Hood, Texas.  This certificate shows
that the applicant underwent a psychiatric examination conducted by a
Medical Corps psychiatrist who stated that the applicant was having a great
deal of difficulty adjusting to military life.

8.  The psychiatrist determined that the applicant had no apparent
psychiatric disorders and that her present difficulties were primarily
related to her marriage to a non-military husband.  The psychiatrist stated
that the applicant's desire to be with her husband precluded continuation
of service.  The psychiatrist stated that the applicant was mentally able
to distinguish right from wrong, had no mental disease or defect, and that
there was no contraindication for any action or decision deemed appropriate
by the command.

9.  On 25 August 1967, the applicant was notified by the commander of the
Special Processing Detachment at Foot Hood, that she had the option to
appear before a board of officers to determine whether she should be
discharged for unfitness under provisions paragraph 6 of Army Regulation
635-212
(Discharge-Unfitness and Unsuitability) for unfitness.

10.  The applicant was further advised by her commander that she was being
recommended for an undesirable discharge with the reason for discharge as
unfitness and that she could exercise the right to request appointment of
military counsel, submit a statement on her behalf; or personal appearance
before a board of officers.


11.  On 25 August 1967, the applicant consulted with the defense counsel at
Fort Hood, Texas.  The applicant was advised of her rights and the effect
of a waiver of these rights.

12.  The applicant was advised of the basis for her separation under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.  The applicant indicated that she
was counseled by appropriate counsel, that she waived consideration of her
case by a board of officers, that she waived the right to provide
statements on her own behalf and that she waived representation by military
counsel.

13.  The applicant also indicated that she was aware that as a result of
the issuance of an undesirable discharge that she may be ineligible for any
or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and state laws, and that
she may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life based on
this undesirable discharge.

14.  On 29 August 1967, the unit commander of the Special Processing
Detachment at Fort Hood recommended the applicant be separated under the
provisions of paragraph 6 of Army Regulation 635-212 with an undesirable
discharge.

15.  On 29 August 1967, the acting commander of the United States Army
Garrison Troops at Fort Hood recommended approval of discharge for
unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.  The commander
further recommended that the applicant be furnished an Undesirable
Discharge Certificate.

16.  On 13 September 1967, the major general serving as acting commander of
Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood, Texas, approved the applicant's
discharge under provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 and directed that the
applicant be furnished with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

17.  On 19 September 1967, the applicant received an under conditions other
than honorable discharge and furnished with an Undesirable Discharge
Certificate in accordance with Army Regulation 635-212.  She had completed
8 months, and 16 days of creditable active military service with 79 days of
lost time due to AWOL.

18.  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.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of
the individual.

19.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that her discharge under other than honorable
conditions should be upgraded because she was not provided an opportunity
to explain her reason for failure to report to appointed place of duty
which resulted in nonjudical punishment in the form of an Article 15.

2.  The applicant contends that she notified her commanding officer that
she was delayed at a court through no fault of her own.  There is no
evidence and the applicant has not provided evidence which shows that the
commanding officer granted the applicant permission to return to her
appointed place of duty at a time other than ordered.

3.  Records show that the applicant was provided the opportunity to appeal
the Article 15 punishment and to provide evidence which would mitigate or
defend her actions which resulted in the issuance of the Article 15 for
failure to report to her appointed place of duty.  The Article 15 which is
authenticated in the applicant's own hand clearly shows that she elected
not to provide any information that would mitigate, extenuate or defense of
her actions.

4.  Therefore, the applicant's contention that she was not provided the
opportunity to present her reasons for failure to report to her appointed
place of duty which resulted in the issuance of the Article 15 is without
factual basis.

5.  The applicant contends that her two AWOL's were as a result of her
husband picking her up from work and not returning her until the next day.
However, records show that the applicant was AWOL for 28 days on the first
offense and 51 days on the second offense.  Therefore, her contention that
her husband did not return her back to work the next day is contrary to the
facts in the case.
6.  In addition, the applicant had successfully completed basic and
advanced individual training and should have been fully aware of military
policies and procedures that required her to obey lawful orders including
being at her appointed place of duty at the proper time.

7.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in
accordance with applicable regulation with no indication of procedural
errors that would tend to jeopardize her rights.

8.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is determined that all
requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the
applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

9.  The applicant's record of service shows that she had 79 days of lost
time due to AWOL which does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct
and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, she is not entitled
to an honorable discharge.

10.  A review of the applicant's record of service shows that the applicant
received one special court-martial for 79 days of AWOL and one Article 15
for failure to report to her appointed place of duty.  As a result, the
applicant's record of service was not satisfactory and she is not entitled
to a general discharge.

11.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 19 September 1967; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
18 September 1970.  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 file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__FE____  __JTM___  __RJO__  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.




                          ___Fred Eichorn_________
                                 CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004103997                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |23 November 2004                        |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19 September 1967                       |
|                        |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0400.0000                           |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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