RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        27 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050000216


      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. David S. Griffin              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Ronald E. Blakely             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lawrence Foster               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |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, in effect, that his general discharge be
upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant makes no statements in support of his request.

3.  The applicant provides no evidence or documentation in support of his
request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred
on 21 September 1965, the date he was released from active duty.  The
application submitted in this case is dated 10 December 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.  The applicant's military records show that he enlisted on 30 April 1962
for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed basic combat and
advanced individual training and was awarded the military occupational
specialty 133.00 (armor intelligence specialist).

4.  On 29 January 1963, the applicant was convicted by a special court-
martial (SPCM) for being absent from appointed place of duty and being
absent without leave (AWOL) during the period from 2 January 1963 to 7
January 1963.

5.  On 25 July 1963, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent
from his place of duty.

6.  On 24 October 1963, the applicant was convicted by a SPCM for two
specifications of failure to go to appointed place of duty and being AWOL
during the period from 1 September 1963 to 27 September 1963.

7.  On 30 March 1965, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for
being AWOL during the period from 26 March 1965 to 29 March 1965.

8.  On 18 May 1965, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial
(SCM) for disrespect to a non-commissioned officer.

9.  On 20 May 1965, the applicant's commander informed him that the
commander intended to bar the applicant from reenlistment.  The commander
stated that the applicant's conduct was completely unsatisfactory.  The
commander further stated that the applicant's lack of consideration for
adhering to military directives and not reporting to his place of duty
resulted in conviction by three court-martials and receiving one NJP.

10.  The applicant's commander stated that it was his opinion that the
applicant was an embittered individual, who flaunted military authority and
was prone to difficulty.  The applicant's commander further stated that the
applicant had not exhibited the qualities demanded of a member of the U.S.
Army and that the applicant had shown contempt for Army Regulations and
military discipline.

11.  On 21 May 1965, the applicant acknowledged that he had been advised of
the basis for the action, and he stated that he did desire to submit a
statement.

12.  On 8 June 1965, the appropriate authority approved the bar to
reenlistment.

13.  On 21 September 1965, the applicant was released from active duty due
to the expiration of his term of service.  He had completed 3 years of
active service that was characterized as under honorable conditions and was
issued a General Discharge Certificate.  He had 145 days time lost.

14.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army
Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within the
ADRB's 15-year statute of limitations.

15.  The Department of the Army Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) was
based on a memorandum from Secretary of Defense Brown and is often referred
to as the “Carter Program.”  It mandated the upgrade of individual cases in
which the applicant met one of several specified criteria and when the
separation was not based on a specified compelling reason to the contrary.
The ADRB had no discretion in such cases other than to decide whether
recharacterization to fully honorable as opposed to a general discharge was
warranted in a particular case.  An individual who had received a punitive
discharge was not eligible for consideration under the SDRP.  Absentees who
returned to military control under the program were eligible for
consideration after they were processed for separation.  Eligibility for
the program was restricted to individuals discharged with either an
undesirable, a discharge UOTHC or a general discharge between 9 August 1964
and 28 March 1973, inclusive.  Individuals could have their discharges
upgraded if they met any one of the following criteria: wounded in action;
received a military decoration other than a service medal; successfully
completed an assignment in Southeast Asia; completed alternate service;
received an honorable discharge from a previous tour of military service;
or completed alternate service or excused therefrom in accordance with
Presidential Proclamation 4313 of 16 September 1974.  Compelling reasons to
the contrary to deny discharge upgrade were desertion/AWOL in or from the
combat area; discharge based on a violent act of misconduct; discharge
based on cowardice or misbehavior before the enemy; or discharge based on
an act of misconduct that would be subject to criminal prosecution under
civil law.

16.  Army Regulation 601-280 (Total Army Retention Program) prescribes
procedures to deny reenlistment (through a field commander’s bar to
reenlistment) to Soldiers whose immediate separation under administrative
procedures is not warranted but whose reentry into, or service beyond ETS
with, the Active Army is not in the best interest of the military service.
When discharge under administrative procedures is not warranted, action
will be taken to bar untrainable Soldiers from further service with the
Regular Army.  These Soldiers are often identified by failure to perform
the basic tasks required of their primary MOS, failure to achieve
individual weapons qualification, failure of the Army’s Physical Fitness
Test, failure of the skill qualification test, and similar reasons.
Frequently, Soldiers will meet the minimum standards for their present
grade but obviously lack the potential to become the supervisor or senior
technician of the future.

17.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), in effect at the
time, 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.  The applicant contends that his discharge with a characterization of
under honorable conditions should be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  Evidence shows that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged
in accordance with regulations in effect at the time.  The type of
discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate
considering all the facts of the case.  The records contain no indication
of procedural or other errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The applicant’s record of service shows he had 145 days of lost time.
The applicant also received NJP on three occasions and was convicted by two
SPCM's and one SCM's.  As a result, his quality of service did not meet the
standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
 Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

4.  The ABCMR does not correct records solely based on the passage of time.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must,
or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or
unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy
that requirement.

6.  The Board also reviewed the applicant's request using the criteria set
forth in the SDRP.  The applicant had not been in Vietnam, did not receive
a personal military decoration or receive an honorable discharge from prior
service.  In addition, there were compelling reasons to the contrary that
his discharge should not have been upgraded due to the numerous infractions
of Army Regulations and his contempt toward military discipline.

7.  Therefore, the applicant did not meet the criteria for an upgraded
discharge under the Special Discharge Review Board Program.

8.  A review of the applicant's record of service, which included NJP and
conviction by SCM and SPCMs, shows the applicant did not meet the standards
of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  The
applicant's entire record of service was considered.  There is no record or
documentary evidence of acts of valor, achievement, or service that would
warrant special recognition.

9.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 21 September 1965, the date he was
released from active duty; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a
request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 20 September
1968.  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

___lmd __  ___lf____  ___reb___  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.




                                  _________Ronald E. Blakely_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050000216                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050927                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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