RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           4 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050001009


      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. James Anderholm               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Richard Dunbar                |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne 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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to a
general discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he has turned his life around and the
character of his discharge does not reflect this.

3.  The applicant provides four character reference letters.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 24 February 1972.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 9 August 2004; however, the application was received in this office
on 21 January 2005.

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 7 November 1969 for a period of 3 years.  He
was awarded military occupational specialty 76U (communications electronics
repair parts specialist).

4.  Records show the applicant was reduced in rank to E-3 by reason of
misconduct (Article 15) effective 1 December 1971.  No other information is
available.

5.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are
not contained in the available records.  However, the applicant's DD Form
214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows that he was discharged with an
undesirable discharge on 24 February 1972 under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served
2 years, 2 months and 7 days of creditable active service with 41 days of
lost time due to AWOL and civil confinement.

6.  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.

7.  The applicant provided character reference letters from a Team Leader
at the Vet Center, his employer, a co-worker, and his twin brother.  These
letters indicate that the applicant is involved in community service, that
his negative behavior was stimulated by war exposure, that he demonstrates
a long commitment to his family, and that he is in need of medical
services, housing and employment.  They indicate that the applicant drove a
taxi from 1980 to 2001, that he had excellent customer service skills and a
positive attitude, that he was very dependable and was a responsible
driver.  His brother states that he is a reliable person and family man and
that he is hard working and reliable.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that
regulation provided, in pertinent part, that a member who had committed an
offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive
discharge might at any time after the charges had 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.

9.  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.

10.  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.  A discharge is not upgraded for the sole purpose of obtaining
Department of Veterans Affairs benefits.

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

3.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that
the applicant’s separation was administratively correct and in conformance
with applicable regulations.  Without having the discharge packet to
consider, it is presumed his characterization of service was commensurate
with his overall record of service.  As a result, there is no basis for
granting the applicant's request.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 24 February 1972; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 23
February 1975.  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

JA______  RD_____  LD______  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 Anderholm___
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050001009                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050804                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19720224                                |
|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]