RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        19 OCTOBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050002204


      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. Gale J. Thomas                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Barbara Ellis                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Hubert Fry                    |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Robert Rogers                 |     |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 records be corrected by upgrading his
discharge.

2.  The applicant makes no additional statements.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his discharge certificate in support
of his request; he indicates that he also submits a DD Form 293; however it
is not attached to his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 7 July 1972.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
31 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 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 inducted into the Army of the United States on 22
June 1965, and was discharged on 6 November 1966, for immediate
reenlistment in the Regular Army.

4.  The applicant was promoted to the pay grades of E-4 and E-5 on 28 July
1966 and 30 November 1966, respectively.

5.  Between October 1970 and 21 May 1971, the applicant was punished on
four occasions under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being
absent without leave (AWOL) from 1 October 1970 to 20 October 1970, 15
February 1971 to 23 February 1971, and 10 May 1971 to 13 May 1971, and for
purchasing three cases of beer from the Post Exchange, thereby exceeding
the legal limit authorized to be purchased in any one day.  His punishments
included reduction, an oral reprimand and forfeitures.

6.  On 9 May 1972, his commander preferred court-martial charges against
him for being AWOL from 20 July 1971 to 25 April 1972.

7.  On 8 June 1972, the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily
requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-
martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10.  His
request acknowledged he understood the nature and consequences of the
undesirable discharge which he might receive.  He indicated he understood
he could be denied some or all veterans' benefits as a result of his
discharge and that he may be deprived of rights and benefits as a veteran
under both Federal and State law. He did not submit any statements on his
own behalf.

8.  On 15 June 1972, his commander recommended approval of his discharge
request, with the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

9.  On 3 July 1972, a medical examination cleared the applicant for
separation.

10.  His request was approved and on 7 July 1972 the applicant was
discharged under other than honorable conditions and issued an Undesirable
Discharge Certificate.

11.  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.  A
discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered
appropriate.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 states that an honorable discharge is a
separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when
the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is
otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly
inappropriate.  It also notes that a general discharge, when authorized,
may be issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not
sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge

13.  There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board to have his discharge upgraded.



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  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.  The type of discharge directed
and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the
case.

2.  There is no evidence in the available records nor did the applicant
provide documentation that would justify upgrading his discharge.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that requirement

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 7 July 1972; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
6 July 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

___BE __  ___HF___  __RR ___  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                 |AR20050002204                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051019                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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