RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:                 13 OCTOBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:         AR20050000115


      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. Deyon D. Battle               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Ted Kanamine                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick McGann                |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Carol Kornhoff                |     |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 undesirable discharge, be upgraded to
an honorable or a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he was suffering from depression while he was
in the Army.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation in support of his
application.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:  Counsel provides no additional
statements or information in support of the applicant's request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or
injustice, which occurred on 29 December 1971.  The application submitted
in this case is dated 4 November 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 limitations 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.  On 4 October 1967, he enlisted in the Army in Little Rock, Arkansas,
for 3 years, in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his
training as a lineman and he was transferred to Germany.  The exact dates
of his advancements are not available for review.  However, the available
records show that on 20 April 1969, while serving in the pay grade of E-4,
he was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  He
had completed 1 year, 5 months and 16 days of net active service.

4.  The applicant reenlisted in the Army on 21 April 1969, in
Kaiserslautern, Germany, for 3 years, in the pay grade of E-4.  He was
transferred to Vietnam on 3 July 1970.


5.  On 8 December 1971, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation
and the attending physician noted that his behavior was normal; he was
fully alert; he was fully oriented; his mood was level; his thinking clear;
and his thought content was normal.  The physician determined that he had
no significant mental illness; that he was able to distinguish right from
wrong and to adhere to the right; that he had the mental capacity to
understand and participate in board proceedings; and that he met retention
standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3.

6.  The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are
not on file.  The Report of Transfer or Discharge (DD Form 214) indicates
that the applicant was discharged on 29 December 1971, under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in
lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 3 years, 11 months and 8
days of total active service and he was furnished an Undesirable Discharge
Certificate.  His DD Form 214 also shows that he had lost time due to his
being absent without leave (AWOL) from 1 September through 12 September
1969; 4 July through 7 July 1971; 9 August through 22 August 1971;
7 September through 8 September 1971; 13 September through 21 September
1971; 5 October through 25 October 1971; and 27 December though 2 December
1971.  He had approximately 100 days of lost time due to AWOL.

7.  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.  However, at the time of the applicant's separation the
regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The type of discharge directed appears to have been appropriate
considering all of the available facts of this case.

2.  The applicant's contentions have been noted.  However, there is no
evidence in the available records, nor has he submitted any evidence, to
support his contention that he was suffering from depression while he was
in the Army.



3.  The available records show that just prior to his discharge, he
underwent a mental status evaluation.  He had no significant mental illness
and he met the retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-
501, chapter 3.  He had approximately 100 days of lost time due to AWOL and
considering his numerous acts of indiscipline, it does not appear that his
undesirable discharge was too harsh.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show 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.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 29 December 1971; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 28 December 1974.  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

___TK___  ___PM__  ___CK __  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.




                                  _____Ted Kanamine_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050000115                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051013                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19711229                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |CHAPTER 10                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES         1.  689  |144.0000/FOR THE GOOD OF SERVICE        |
|2.  708                 |144.7100/CONDUCT TRIABLE BY CM          |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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