RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           13 SEPTEMBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050002536


      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             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Shirley L. Powell             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert L. Duecaster           |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette R. McCants           |     |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, in effect, an upgrade of his undesirable
discharge (UD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he is a Vietnam veteran who suffers
from a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 11 October 1972.  The application submitted in this case
is dated
7 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 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’s record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 17 February 1971.  He was trained in, awarded and
served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman), and the
highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private first
class (PFC).

4.  The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows he
served in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) from 25 August 1971 through 12 June
1972.  Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) shows that he earned the following
awards during his tenure on active duty:  National Defense Service Medal,
Vietnam Service Medal, RVN Campaign Medal with 1960 Device, Expert
Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar and 1 Overseas Bar.

5.  The applicant’s record reveals a disciplinary history that includes his
acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article
15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on four separate occasions.

6.  The applicant’s record shows he accepted NJP on the following four
separate occasions for the offenses indicated:  1 February 1972, for three
specifications of failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the
prescribed time; 14 February 1972, for failing to be at his appointed place
of duty at the prescribed time and breaking restriction; 27 March 1972, for
four specifications of failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the
prescribed time; and 2 May 1972, for two specifications of being absent
without leave (AWOL) from his unit in the RVN.

7.  The applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) includes a
Report of Medical Examination (SF 88) that documents a separation medical
examination completed on the applicant on 15 September 1972.  This document
confirms the applicant received “Normal” ratings in all clinical
evaluations completed, to include psychiatric, and that no defects were
noted.  The examining physician assigned the applicant a Physical Profile
of 111111 and medically cleared the applicant for separation.

8.  On 20 September 1972, a Charge Sheet (DD Form 458) was prepared
preferring a court-martial charge against the applicant for violating
Article 86 of the UCMJ by being AWOL from on or about 25 July through on or
about 12 September 1972.

9.  On 21 September 1972, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and
was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the
effects of an UD and of the rights available to him.  Subsequent to
receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge
for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.

10.  In his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged he understood
that if his discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or
all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits
administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and that he could
be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and
State law.  He further indicated that he understood that he could encounter
substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of an UD.

11.  On 29 September 1972, while his request for discharge was being
processed, the applicant again departed AWOL from his organization at
Fort Riley, Kansas.

12.  Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division and Fort Riley Orders Number 284,
dated 10 October 1972, directed the applicant’s UD under the provisions of
chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, effective 11 October 1972.
13.  On 11 October 1972, the Acting Assistant Adjutant, Headquarters, 1st
Infantry Division and Fort Riley, notified the applicant’s commander that
the applicant’s discharge was effected by Orders Number 284 because the
applicant was in an AWOL status.  On 11 October 1972, the applicant was
discharged accordingly.

14.  The DD Form 214 prepared on the applicant upon his discharge shows he
completed a total of 1 year, 5 months and 17 days of creditable active
military service, and accrued a total of 68 days of time lost due to AWOL.


15.  There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year
statute of limitations.

16.  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. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the
regulation provided for the issuance of an UD.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s claim that he suffers from a PTSD as a result of his
combat service in the RVN, which impaired his ability to serve was
carefully considered.  However, a separation medical examination completed
on the applicant during his discharge processing confirms he did not suffer
from a disabling mental or physical condition at the time of his discharge.


2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the
commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive
discharge. After consulting with defense counsel, he voluntarily requested
discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  It further shows the
applicant departed AWOL while his discharge request was being processed and
that he was ultimately discharged while in an AWOL status.  The record
further confirms all requirements of law and regulation were met and that
the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation
process.  Further, the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his
undistinguished record of service.

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

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 11 October 1972.  Thus, the time for
him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on
10 October 1975. He failed to 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

___SLP _  ___RLD _  ___JRM _  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.




            ____Shirley L. Powell_____
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050002536                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/09/13                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1972/10/11                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |C10                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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