RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        14 December 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004106888


      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:

|     |Ms. Jennifer L. Prater            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Diane J. Armstrong            |     |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 be upgraded from under other
than honorable conditions to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he previously served in Vietnam
and received an honorable discharge, the Combat Infantryman Badge, and the
Good Conduct Medal.

3. The applicant states that his discharge was based on a minor offense.
The applicant further states that his personal problems impaired his
ability to serve and that his request for compassionate reassignment was
denied.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice error
that occurred on 22 March 1978, the date of his separation from active
duty.  The application submitted in this case is dated 30 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 November 1965 and
successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training.  He
was awarded military occupational specialty 36K (Field Wireman).  The
applicant
served in Vietnam from 8 August 1966 through 7 February 1968.  He was
promoted to the rank of sergeant/pay grade E-5 on 24 December 1967.  On
16 April 1968, the applicant reenlisted for a term of 4 years.

4.  On 1 May 1969, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for unlawfully
striking a Non-commissioned Officer (NCO).



5.  Records show that the applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) for the
period 6 October 1970 through 23 February 1978.  The applicant's records
further show that he surrendered to military authorities at Fort Dix, New
Jersey and was returned to military control at Fort Sill, Oklahoma on 24
February 1978.

6.  On 28 February 1978, the applicant underwent a mental evaluation by a
medical physician that determined that he could distinguish right from
wrong and that he possessed sufficient mental capacity to understand and
participate in administrative or judicial proceedings.

7.  A Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical History), dated 28 February 1978,
shows that the applicant was qualified for separation.

8.  A Standard Form 89 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 28 February
1978, shows that the applicant was being separated and that his present
health was "good."

9.  A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 2 March 1978, shows charges were
preferred against the applicant for being AWOL for the period 6 October
1970 through 24 February 1978.

10.  On 2 March 1978, the applicant was informed of the charges against him
by the Assistant Adjutant, Special Processing Company, Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

11.  On 3 March 1978, after consulting with counsel, the applicant
submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the
provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel
Separations).  The applicant indicated in his request that he understood he
could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an
Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate; 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 Under Other
Than Honorable Conditions Discharge.

12.  On 15 March 1978, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's
request for discharge for the good of the service.  He directed that the
applicant be issued an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge and
be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.  The applicant completed 5 years,
11 months, and 10 days of creditable active service of a 4-year
reenlistment with 2698 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
13.  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.

14.  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.

15.  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's prior service achievements and conduct are noteworthy.
However, prior good military service conduct alone is not a basis for
upgrading a discharge, and upon review, the applicant's good prior service
conduct is not sufficient to mitigate his indiscipline in the Army.

2.  The applicant contends that his discharge was based on a minor offense.
 However, the applicant's records show that he was AWOL for nearly 8 years.
 The applicant further contends that he had personal problems that impaired
his ability to serve and that his request for compassionate reassignment
was denied. There is no evidence in the applicant's service records and the
applicant has provided no evidence that supports this claim.

3.  Evidence shows that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged
in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time.

4.  The applicant's records show that he received one Article 15 and one
instance of AWOL.  The applicant had completed 5 years, 11 months, and 10
days of his
4-year reenlistment with a total of 2698 lost days due to AWOL and
confinement. Based on these facts, the applicant’s service clearly did not
meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army
personnel which are required for issuance of an honorable discharge.

5.  Based on the applicant’s multiple offenses, his record of service did
not meet the regulatory standard of satisfactory service.  In the absence
of a record of satisfactory service, the applicant is not entitled to a
general discharge.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 22 March 1978; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
21 March 1981.  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

___JLP__  ___LE___  __DJA__  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.




                                  ___Jennifer L. Prater_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004106888                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |14 December 2004                        |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.9230.0000                           |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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