RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        22 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050001936


      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. Beverly A. Young              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Anderholm               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Bernard Ingold                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael Flynn                 |     |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 under honorable conditions discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he served honorably for over 2.5 years and
has received the Vietnam Service Medal with four bronze service stars.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the
United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 17 February 1972.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
30 November 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 July 1969 for a period
of three years.  He completed the required training and was awarded
military occupational specialty 63B (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).  He was
assigned to Vietnam in December 1969.  He was advanced to private first
class on              19 December 1969.

4.  On 19 January 1970, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for leaving his place
of duty and for disobeying a lawful order from his superior noncommissioned
officer.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of private E-
2 and a forfeiture of $31.00 for one month.

5.  He was promoted to specialist four on 29 January 1971.

6.  The applicant departed Vietnam in July 1971 and was reassigned to Fort
Hood, Texas.

7.  During the period from 28 September 1971 through 22 November 1971, the
applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 on five
occasions for not returning to field exercises from sick call; for being
absent from his place of duty; for failing to go to his appointed place of
duty; and for disobeying a lawful order.

8.  On 24 November 1971, the applicant’s unit commander notified him of
pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212,
based on unfitness.  He was advised of his rights.

9.  The applicant acknowledged notification of pending separation action,
consulted with legal counsel, waived consideration of his case by a board
of officers, waived personal appearance before a board of officers, and
submitted statements in his own behalf.  He stated that he enlisted in the
Army at 18 years old.  He completed basic training, advanced individual
training and was awarded MOS 63B.  He was assigned to Vietnam and worked as
a mechanic and driver.  For his service in Vietnam, he was awarded the
Vietnam Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal and the
Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions First Class Unit Citation.  He was also
entitled to wear the National Defense Medal. He had difficulty adjusting to
the demands of the service after returning to stateside duty.  He felt he
was unduly harassed which hindered his readjustment to stateside duty and
becoming a good Soldier.  In addition, he had personal problems with his
fiancé and these problems placed him in an emotional state which has
manifested itself in the problems he had with active duty.  He requested
that he be given a general discharge based on his dedicated service in
Vietnam.

10.  Item 44 (Time Lost Under Section 972, Title 10, United States Code and
Subsequent to Normal Date ETS) on the applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted
Qualification Record) shows he was absent without leave (AWOL) from
3 December 1971 through 14 December 1971 and was confined from 15 December
1971 through 17 January 1972.  There is no record of nonjudicial punishment
for the period of AWOL.

11.  The separation authority's approval of the separation action is not
available.

12.  On 17 February 1972, the applicant was discharged from active duty
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness - frequent
incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities with
an undesirable discharge.  He completed 2 years, 5 months and 10 days total
active military service with 46 days of lost time.

13.  His DD Form 214 shows he was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal with
four bronze service stars, the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification
Badge with Rifle Bar, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal and the
Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Medal, First Class Unit Citation.

14.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6a(1) of the
regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent
incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were
subject to separation for unfitness.  An undesirable discharge was normally
considered appropriate.

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 administrative separation under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-212 was accomplished in compliance with applicable
regulations at that time.  There is no indication of procedural errors
which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The applicant contends that he served honorably for over 2.5 years;
however, his service record shows he received six Article 15s and had
46 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 an upgrade to general.

3.  The applicant has failed to show that the character of discharge issued
to him was in error or unjust.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 17 February 1972; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 16 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______  BI______  MF______  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                 |AR20050001936                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |YYYYMMDD                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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