RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        27 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050000466


      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. Rene’ R. Parker               |     |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 that his under other than honorable conditions
discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his age and alcohol dependency
influenced his behavior and led to his under other than honorable
conditions discharge.

3.  The applicant provides his self-authored statement.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 19 June 1973.  The application submitted in this case is
dated        28 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 record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 28 April 1972.  He was trained in, awarded, and
served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 71B10 (Clerk Typist).

4.  On 16 November 1972, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against
the applicant for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed
place of duty and willfully disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment
consisted of forfeiture of $50.00 per month for 1 month and extra duty for
7 days.

5.  On 30 January 1973, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failing
to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  His
punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of private/E-1, suspended
for 30 days, extra duty for
7 days, and forfeiture of $25.00 per month for one month.


6.  On 23 February 1973, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being
absent from his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of reduction to
the grade of private/E-1, restriction to the company area for 14 days,
extra duty for 14 days, and forfeiture of $50.00 per month for one month.

7.  On 6 March 1973, NJP was imposed against the applicant for breaking
restriction and being absent from his place of duty from 27 February 1973
until   2 March 1973.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $150.00
per month for  2 months and held in correctional custody for 15 days.

8.  On 6 April 1973, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being absent
from the correction custody facility.  Punishment was not imposed.

9.  On 18 April 1973, charges were preferred against the applicant for
absenting himself without authority from the Correction Custody Facility.

10.  On 27 April 1973, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to
obey a lawful order.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $50.00 per
month for 1 month, restriction to the company area for 14 days, and extra
duty for 14 days.

11.  On 11 May 1973, NJP was imposed against the applicant for breaking
restriction.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $150.00 per month
for 1 month and extra duty for 45 days.

12.  On 18 May 1973, the applicant’s separation medical examination was
signed by the physician/examiner.  The examination contains the statement
“I’m in good health” and is signed by the applicant and dated 3 May 1973.

13.  On 25 May 1973, the applicant consulted with his counsel and requested
a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial
under the provisions of Chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200.

14.  The applicant signed his request for discharge which showed that he
was making the request under his own free will; that he was afforded the
opportunity to speak with counsel; that he may be 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
Veterans Administration benefits; and that he may expect to encounter
substantial prejudice in civilian life because of discharge under other
than honorable conditions.  The applicant elected not to provide a
statement on his behalf.

15.  On 29 May 1973, the captain in command of Headquarters and
Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 35th Armor, forwarded the
recommendation for the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service.  The commander
cited the applicant’s record of indiscipline.  He recommended an
Undesirable Discharge Certificate be issued.

16.  On 30 May 1973, the major in the position of acting commander of the
    1st Battalion, 35th Armor, recommended approval of the discharge
action.  He also recommended that the applicant be issued an Undesirable
Discharge Certificate.

17.  On 31 May 1973, the lieutenant colonel in command of the 2d Brigade,
   1st Armored Division, recommended approval of the applicant’s discharge
action and issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

18.  On 5 June 1973, the major general in command of 1st Armored Division,
approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10 of
Army Regulation 635-200 with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

19.  The applicant's DD Form 214 (Report of Separation From Active Duty)
shows that he was discharged under conditions other than honorable on
    19 June 1973.  The applicant had 1 year, 1 month, and 17 days of
creditable service.

20.  On 4 December 1974 and 25 November 1983, the applicant appealed to the
Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to upgrade his discharge.  The ADRB
denied both appeals.  The denial dated 4 February 1975, states that the
ADRB determined that the applicant was properly discharged.  On 23 January
1985, the ADRB again determined that the applicant was both properly and
equitably discharged.

21.  In support of his application, the applicant provides his self-
authored statement.  In his statement the applicant explains that he was 17
years old at the time of enlistment and did not understand the benefits of
a good service record.  He admits that he turned to alcohol to alleviate
his home sickness but, later realized that it was a mistake.  He states
that he has his life in order and has been an electrician for six years.
He maintains that he now has an opportunity to work for the post office
but, it requires that his discharge be upgraded to honorable.

22.  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.  The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing
that applicants to the ADRB are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there,
and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (AR 15-185, paragraph 2-8),
effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year
limit on filing to the ABCMR should commence on the date of final action by
the ADRB.  In complying with this decision, the Board has adopted the
broader policy of calculating the 3-year time limit from the date of
exhaustion in any case where a lower level administrative remedy is
utilized

23.   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.

24.  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 his discharge should be upgraded because of
his age and the fact that alcohol dependency influenced his behavior.

2.  Evidence of record confirms that all requirements of law and regulation
were met and the applicant’s rights were fully protected throughout the
separation process.  The record further shows the applicant’s discharge
accurately reflects his overall record of service.

3.  The records show that the applicant was 17 years old at the time of his
offenses.  Nevertheless, there is no evidence that indicates that the
applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who
successfully completed military service.  Therefore, the contention by the
applicant that his age led to his indiscipline is not sufficient as a basis
for upgrading his discharge.

4.  Additionally, the applicant contends that his alcohol dependency
influenced his behavior.  He argues that his homesickness caused him to
turn to alcohol to alleviate his problems.

5.  There is no evidence that indicates the applicant suffered from or
received treatment for alcohol dependency during his military service or
that alcohol dependency was the cause of his indiscipline and subsequent
separation.  Therefore, this contention is not supported by evidence of
record.

6.  Based on this record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly
does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty
for Army personnel.  This misconduct renders his service unsatisfactory.
Therefore, he is not entitled to either a general or an honorable
discharge.

7.  Records show the applicant exhausted his administrative remedies in
this case when his case was last reviewed by the Army Discharge Review
Board on 23 January 1985.  As a result, the time for the applicant to file
a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 22 January
1988.  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                 |AR20050000466                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050907                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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