RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          30 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050000987


      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:

|     |Mr. Paul Smith                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Yolanda Maldonado             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Leonard Hassell               |     |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
honorable.

2.  The applicant states he does not wish to gain any military benefits, he
is sorry for his actions when he was younger, and he is retired from a
company he was employed by for 15 years.

3.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 3 November 1967.  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 was born on 18 June 1944.  He was ordered to active duty
on 10 August 1962 and was released from active duty on 9 February 1963.  He
enlisted on 30 September 1963 for a period of 3 years.  He was awarded
military occupational specialty 36A (wireman).

4.  On 7 November 1964, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 2 November 1964 to
3 November 1964.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay,
restriction, and extra duty.

5.  On 11 February 1966, in accordance with his plea, the applicant was
convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 23 September 1965
to
27 December 1965.  He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 3
months and to forfeit $90 pay per month for 6 months.  On 16 February 1966,
the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as provided
for confinement at hard labor for 3 months and forfeiture of $83 per month
for 3 months.  On 14 April 1966, the unexecuted portions of the applicant’s
sentence were suspended until 25 April 1966.

6.  On 29 June 1966, in accordance with his plea, the applicant was
convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 24 April 1966 to 30
May 1966.  He was sentenced to be restricted to the limits of the company
area for 2 months.  On 6 July 1966, the convening authority approved the
sentence.

7.  On 9 December 1966, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for failure to repair and using disrespectful language toward his
superior noncommissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of restriction
and extra duty.

8.  On 3 March 1967, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for missing formation and failing to obey a lawful order.  His
punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 (suspended) and extra duty.  On
10 March 1967, the suspension of the punishment of reduction to E-2 was
vacated.

9.  On 14 June 1967, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being AWOL (9 hours).  His punishment consisted of a
forfeiture of pay.

10.  On 19 July 1967, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for two specifications of being AWOL (3 July 1967 to 6 July 1967
and 13 July 1967 to 15 July 1967).  His punishment consisted of a
forfeiture of pay, restriction, and extra duty.

11.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the
period ending 3 November 1967 shows he went AWOL on 7 August 1967 and
returned to military control on 20 September 1967.  The charge sheet is not
available.

12.  On 25 September 1967, after consulting with counsel, the applicant
submitted a request for 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 that he could be discharged under other than
honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate,
that he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he might be
ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans
Administration and that he might be deprived of his rights and benefits as
a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He also acknowledged that he
might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an
undesirable discharge.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own
behalf.

13.  On 23 October 1967, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable
discharge.

14.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable
discharge on 3 November 1967 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-
200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served 3 years, 4
months and 6 days of total active service with 457 days of lost time due to
AWOL and confinement.

15.  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.

16.  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.  At the time, an undesirable
discharge was normally considered appropriate.

17.  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.

18.  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.  Age is not a sufficiently mitigating factor.  The applicant completed
basic combat training and advanced individual training and was 20 years old
when his first nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him.

2.  Good post service achievements alone are not a basis for upgrading a
discharge.

3.  The applicant’s record of service included five nonjudicial
punishments, two special court-martial convictions, and 457 days of lost
time.  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 discharge or honorable discharge.

4.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to
avoid 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 concerns or 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 3 November 1967; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 2
November 1970.  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

PS_____  YM______  LH______  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.




            ___Paul Smith____________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050000987                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050830                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19671103                                |
|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]