RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          9 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050000565


      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. Wanda L. Waller               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Barbara Ellis                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Kenneth Wright                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Patrick McGann                |     |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 under other than honorable
conditions be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states there is no excuse for what he did; however, when
he did it he believed he was being treated unjustly.  He contends he was an
E-4 with three years of service and had no disciplinary action at the time.
 One night he went out and got drunk and got up late for formation.  His
new motor pool sergeant busted him to E-3 and wanted to bust him to E-1 and
send him to “CCI.” He felt that was too harsh.  He apologizes for what he
did and would like to join the National Guard or the State Guard.

3.  The applicant provides two character reference letters and a criminal
history check.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 22 October 1986.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
29 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 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 on 16 September 1980 for a period of 4 years.
He successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training
in military occupational specialty 63B (light wheel vehicle and power
generator mechanic).  He attained the rank of specialist four on 1 March
1982.

4.  The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 3 November 1983 and
returned to military control on 9 November 1983.  He went AWOL again on
16 November 1983 and was apprehended by civil authorities on 2 September
1986 for a civilian charge of failure to appear.  He was returned to
military control on 4 September 1986.  On 16 September 1986, charges were
preferred against the applicant for the AWOL charges.

5.  On 17 September 1986, the applicant consulted with counsel and
requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He indicated in his request that he
understood he might be discharged under other than honorable conditions;
that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the
Veterans Administration; that he would be deprived of many or all Army
benefits; and that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a
veteran under both Federal and State law.  He also acknowledged that he
might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of
a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  He elected not to make
a statement in his own behalf.

6.  On 26 September 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant's
request for discharge, directed that he be furnished a discharge under
other than honorable conditions, and reduced him in rank to E-1.

7.  There is no evidence that the applicant was reduced in rank until
26 September 1986.

8.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable
conditions on 22 October 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-
200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served 3 years, 3
months and 13 days of total active service with 1029 days of lost time due
to AWOL and civilian confinement.

9.  The applicant provided a character reference letter from the prison’s
minister. He attests the applicant attends group Bible study at the
corrections center and he has observed a positive change in the applicant’s
demeanor and positive relations with his fellow residents.

10.  The applicant provided a character reference letter from the garage
manager at the detention center.  He attests the applicant is a diligent
worker with a good attitude, he is an asset to the garage, and is
responsible.

11.  The applicant also provided a criminal history search from the
Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office.  The records revealed the applicant did
not have a criminal record; however, he had civil charges with that agency.
 Those charges consist of Failure to Pay Support (Berkeley County) and a
Contempt of Court charge on a ticket that was issued by the highway patrol.

12.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of
limitations.

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,
submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial
by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges
have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.
Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, 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 contentions were noted.  However, there is no evidence
of record which shows the applicant was reduced from E-4 to E-3.  Evidence
of record shows the applicant attained the rank of E-4 on 1 March 1982 and
was reduced to E-1 on 26 September 1986.

2.  The character reference letters submitted on behalf of the applicant
fail to show that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

3.  The applicant’s record of service included two AWOL offenses, one of
which was very lengthy, that led to referral of court-martial charges.  As
a result, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the
standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
 Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious
to warrant a general or honorable discharge.

4.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial,
was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable
regulations. He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could
have voiced his reasons for going AWOL and he failed to do so.

5.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 22 October 1986; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 21
October 1989.  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

BE_____  KW_____  PM______  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.



            __Barbara Ellis_______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050000565                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050809                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19861022                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 Chapter 10                   |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |For the good of the service             |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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