RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        2 November 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004105572


      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. Jeanie M. Biggs               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Margaret K. Patterson         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Joe R. Schroeder              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Robert L. Duecaster           |     |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 discharge under other than honorable
conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he was told that his discharge would be
upgraded to honorable after 2 years if he applied or requested the upgrade.
 He also states that he was young and didn’t really care what type of
discharge he received.  He is now older and more mature, and is embarrassed
to have an UOTHC discharge.

3.  The applicant does not provide any documentation in support of his
request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 15 July 1983.  The application submitted in this case is dated
1 March 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 12 December 1964.  At age 17, with parental
consent, he enlisted into the United States Army Reserve on 23 November
1982 for a period of 6 years. He was ordered to 12 weeks of active duty
training on   14 January 1983.

4.  While in initial entry training, non-judicial punishment was imposed
against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 22 January to 3
February 1983, and for being absent from his appointed place of duty.  His
punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $275.00 per month for a period of
one month, and 30 days confinement.  He did not appeal the punishment.

5.  Charges were preferred against the applicant on 2 June 1983, for being
AWOL from 7 February to 21 May 1983.




6.  On 6 June 1983, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted
a request for 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 could be discharged UOTHC; that he may be deprived of many or
all Army benefits; that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits
administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs; and that he may be
deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and
State law.  He also acknowledged that he may expect to encounter
substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an UOTHC discharge.
Additionally, he elected to not submit a statement in his own behalf.

7.  On 17 June 1983, the applicant’s unit commander recommended a discharge
UOTHC.  The intermediate commander concurred.

8.  Accordingly, on 24 June 1983, the applicant was given an UOTHC
discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of
the service.  He had 2 months and 7 days of total active federal service
and 115 days of lost time.

9.  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 UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

10.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Court-martial charges were properly preferred against the applicant.






2.  The applicant has submitted no issue of error or injustice.  He
provided no information concerning the circumstances that led to his
discharge or information or evidence of post service achievements that
would help in justifying a discharge upgrade.

3.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service to
avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in
conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the
request was made under coercion or
duress.

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 or submit persuasive argument
for clemency.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy this requirement.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant’s request.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 15 July 1983; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 14 July 1986.  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

___mkp _  ____jrs__  ____rld__  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.

3.  Therefore, there is insufficient basis to waive the statute of
limitations for timely filing or for correction of the records of the
individual concerned.




                                  _____Margaret K. Patterson____
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004105572                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041102                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19830715                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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