RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          29 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050002103


      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. Lester Echols                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Paul Smith                    |     |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
general.

2.  The applicant states he was discharged for being absent without leave
(AWOL).  He contends he was a young rebellious fool and a disgrace to his
country and family.  He also contends he deeply regrets his lack of
maturity and sense of duty.

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 22 March 1973.  The application submitted in this case is dated
30 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 was born on 19 January 1953.  He enlisted on 28 May 1970
for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed basic combat training
and advanced individual training in military occupational specialty 62B
(engineer equipment maintenance).

4.  On 22 February 1971, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for failure to repair.  His punishment consisted of a reduction
to E-2 and a forfeiture of pay.

5.  On 16 March 1971, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for missing formation.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture
of pay and restriction.

6.  On 27 April 1971, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being AWOL from 26 April 1971 to 27 April 1971.  His
punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and restriction.

7.  On 15 October 1971, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being AWOL from 13 October 1971 to 14 October 1971.  His
punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and restriction.

8.  On 19 May 1972, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for failing to obey a lawful order (to get a haircut).  His
punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

9.  The applicant went AWOL on 7 August 1972 and returned to military
control on 8 August 1972.  He went AWOL again on 16 August 1972 and
returned to military control on 25 September 1972.  On 28 September 1972,
charges were preferred against the applicant for the AWOL periods.  Trial
by summary court-martial was recommended.

10.  On 4 October 1972, after consulting with counsel, the applicant
submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of
trial by court-martial 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.  The applicant elected
to submit a statement in his own behalf.  In summary, he stated that his
obligation to the Army was destroying his marriage and the pay was not
enough to live on.
11.  The separation authority denied the applicant’s request for discharge.

12.  The applicant went AWOL on 4 November 1972 and returned to military
control on 16 January 1973.  On 26 January 1973, charges were preferred
against the applicant for this AWOL period and the previous two AWOL
periods (7 August 1972 to 8 August 1972 and 16 August 1972 to 25 September
1972).

13.  On 8 February 1973, after consulting with counsel, the applicant
submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of
trial by court-martial 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.  The applicant elected
to submit a statement in his own behalf.  In summary, he stated that his
attitude toward the Army was completely negative which affected his
personal life and mental condition.

14.  On 26 February 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
request for discharge and directed that he be issued an undesirable
discharge.

15.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable
discharge on
22 March 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10,
for the good of the service.  He had served 2 years, 3 months and 23 days
of total active service and had 171 days of lost time due to AWOL.

16.  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.

17.  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.

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.  Although the applicant
was 17 years old when he enlisted, he successfully completed basic combat
training and advanced individual training.

2.  The applicant’s record of service included five nonjudicial punishments
and 171 days of lost time.  As a result, his record of service was not
satisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is
insufficiently meritorious to warrant a general discharge.

3.  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.

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

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 22 March 1973; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 21
March 1976.  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

LE_____  PS______  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.

            __Lester Echols_______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050002103                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050929                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19730322                                |
|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]