RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          6 October 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050002253


      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. Curtis Greenway               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Richard Dunbar                |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Laverne Berry                 |     |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 served almost three years without incident
before being discharged.  He contends, in effect, the offenses for which
court-martial charges were preferred against him were assault and being
absent without leave (AWOL).

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 7 April 1972.  The application submitted in this case is dated
1 February 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 18 August 1969 for a period of 3 years.  He
successfully completed basic combat training and on the job training in
military occupational specialty 94B (food service apprentice).

4.  On 4 May 1971, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant
for failure to repair.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3
(suspended).

5.  On 19 July 1971, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being AWOL from 18 July 1971 to 20 July 1971.  His punishment
consisted of a forfeiture of pay and restriction.

6.  On 29 December 1971, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being AWOL from 13 December 1971 to 28 December 1971.  His
punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

7.  On 12 January 1972, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being AWOL from 29 December 1971 to 11 January 1972.  His
punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3.

8.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are
not contained in the available records.

9.  On 5 April 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
chapter 10, for the good of the service and directed that he be furnished
an undesirable discharge.

10.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable
discharge on 7 April 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served a total of 2 years,
6 months and 24 days of creditable active service with 26 days of lost time
due to AWOL.

11.  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.

12.  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.

13.  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.  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.

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

CG_____  RD______  LB______  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.



            __Curtis Greenway_____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050002253                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051006                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19720405                                |
|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]