RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        26 October 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050000543


      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:

|     |Mr. James E. Vick                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Conrad V. Meyer               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Linda M. Baker                |     |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 under other than honorable
conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states “When I was discharged in 1988, I was told after 6
mo. my discharge would upgraded.  I have tried many times, but no result.”

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 19 April 1988.  The application submitted in this case is dated
26 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 in the Regular
Army on 30 November 1977 for a period of 3 years, trained in Military
Occupational Specialty 13B10, and was honorably discharged on 30 June 1980
for immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 1 July 1980 for a period of 3
years.

4.  The applicant's records show that he departed AWOL on 24 May 1983, and
was dropped from the rolls of the Army on 23 June 1983.  Records show the
applicant surrendered to military control on 26 January 1988.

5.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are
not present in the available records.  However, his DD Form 214 indicates
that on  19 April 1988 he was discharged with an under other than honorable
conditions discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
Chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
He served 5 years, 8 months, and 12 days of active service and had 1707
days of time lost.

6.  There is no indication in the available records to show that the
applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year
status of limitations.

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative
Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the administrative
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.
The request must include the Soldier's acknowledgement that the Soldier
understands the elements of the offense(s) charged and that the Soldier is
guilty of the charge(s) or of a lesser included offense therein contained
which also authorized the imposition of a punitive discharge.  A discharge
under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

8.  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, 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 Board considered the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge
from an under other than honorable conditions to an honorable discharge.

2.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are
not available.

3. Contrary to the applicant’s contention, there are no provisions to
upgrade a discharge based solely on the passage of time.

4.  The applicant has submitted no issues 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.


5.  A review of the applicant’s available record of service shows that the
applicant
was absent without leave for 1707 days.  This in itself shows that the
applicant did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance
expected of Army personnel; therefore the applicant is not entitled to an
upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to an
honorable discharge.

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

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

8.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 19 April 1988; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on         18 April 1991.  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

___cvm__  ___jev__  ___lmb__  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.

                                  _________James E. Vick_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050000543                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051026                                |
|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]