RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          20 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050002487


      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 Hise                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas O'Shaughnessy          |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Patrick McGann                |     |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
honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was 17 when he enlisted and the
reason he joined the Army was to marry his wife (father-in-law told him
that if he joined the service he could marry his daughter).  He states he
married after boot camp; however, his wife could not handle him being away
so much.  He contends that they divorced in 1970, that he remarried and has
been married for 30 years, and that he is currently disabled.

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 13 September 1968.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
2 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 was born on 25 May 1948.  He enlisted on 15 March 1966
for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed basic combat training.


4.  While in advanced individual training, on 30 August 1966, in accordance
with his plea, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of
being absent without leave (AWOL) from 12 June 1966 to 15 July 1966.  He
was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 3 months and to forfeit $20
per month for 5 months. On 12 September 1966, the convening authority
approved the sentence but suspended the sentence to confinement for 3
months.  On 31 October 1966, the suspended portion of the sentence to
confinement was vacated.  The vacated sentence was suspended on 28 November
1966, apparently as a result of an approved sentence under an October 1966
court-martial conviction.

5.  On 25 October 1966, in accordance with his plea, the applicant was
convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 4 September 1966 to
9 October 1966.  He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 6 months
and to forfeit $37 per month for 6 months.  On 23 November 1966, the
convening authority approved the sentence but suspended the sentence to
confinement for 6 months.

6.  On 27 February 1967, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being AWOL from 11 February 1967 to 22 February 1967.  His
punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

7.  On 1 August 1968, in accordance with his pleas, the applicant was
convicted by a special court-martial of two specifications of AWOL (27 May
1968 to 1 June 1968 and 3 June 1968 to 29 June 1968).  He was sentenced to
be confined at hard labor for 6 months and to forfeit $41 per month for 6
months.  On 5 August 1968, the convening authority approved the sentence.
On 26 August 1968, the unexecuted portion of the approved sentence to
confinement at hard labor for 6 months and forfeiture of $41 per month for
6 months was remitted.

8.  On 23 August 1968, the applicant was notified of his pending separation
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.  After
consulting with counsel, the applicant waived consideration of his case by
a board of officers and representation by counsel.  He also elected not to
submit a statement on his own behalf.

9.  On 23 August 1968, the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to
separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness
due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military
authorities.  He cited the applicant's five periods of AWOL totaling 116
days, three special court-martial convictions, and one nonjudicial
punishment.

10.  The separation authority's action is not available.

11.  On 13 September 1968, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable
discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness due
to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military
authorities.  He had served 1 year, 8 months and 28 days of creditable
service with 271 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

12.  There is no indication in the available records that the applicant
applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within
its 15-year statute of limitations.

13.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set for 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.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 is the current regulation governing the
separation of enlisted personnel.  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.


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.  Age is not a sufficiently mitigating factor.  Although the applicant
was 17 years old when he enlisted, he successfully completed basic combat
training.

2.  The applicant’s record of service included one nonjudicial punishment,
three special court-martial convictions and 271 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 a general discharge or an honorable discharge.

3.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  He had an opportunity to
submit a statement in which he could have voiced his reasons for AWOL and
he failed to do so.

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 13 September 1968; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 12
September 1971.  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

JH______  TO_____  PM_____  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 Hise____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050002487                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050920                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19680913                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-212                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unfitness                               |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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