RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           1 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050002809


      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. Stanley Kelley                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Barbara Ellis                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Richard Dunbar                |     |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 discharge under other than honorable
conditions be upgraded to general.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, due to his father’s death on 5
February 1985 and his mother’s long illness he made a lot of bad decisions
as an 18 year old.  He contends he is currently employed and has been sober
for 2 1/2 years.

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 24 February 1986.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 22 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 7 January 1967.  He enlisted on 22 February
1985 for a period of 4 years.  He successfully completed basic training and
advanced individual training in military occupational specialty 63S (heavy
wheel vehicle mechanic).

4.  The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 9 November 1985 and
returned to military control on 27 December 1985.  On 8 January 1986,
charges were preferred against the applicant for the AWOL period.  In an
interview with his unit commander on 8 January 1986, the applicant reported
that he went AWOL due to personal problems (while home on leave his mother
suffered a heart attack, he had a younger sibling living at home and in
school, and he thought it was more important to stay home and care for his
mother).  He told his unit commander that he did not try to notify his unit
for a leave extension and he went AWOL.

5.  On 8 January 1986, the applicant consulted with counsel and requested
discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He indicated in his request that he
understood he might be discharged under conditions other than honorable and
furnished an other than honorable discharge; that he might be ineligible
for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration; that
he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits; and that he might be
ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and
State law.  He also acknowledged that he might expect to encounter
substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an Other Than Honorable
Discharge.  He elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.

6.  On 7 February 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant's
request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under
other than honorable conditions.

7.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable
conditions on 24 February 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-
martial.  He had served a total of 10 months and 15 days of creditable
active service with 48 days of lost time due to AWOL.

8.  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.

9.  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,
submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial
by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges
have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.
Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under
other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

10.  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.  Family problems are not grounds for upgrading a discharge.  There is no
evidence the applicant sought assistance from his chain of command or
chaplain on a way to resolve his problems within established Army
procedures.  It is also noted the applicant’s father died prior to his
enlistment.

2.  Age is not a sufficiently mitigating factor.  The applicant was 18
years old when he enlisted and he successfully completed basic combat
training and advanced individual training

3.  Good post service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a
discharge.

4.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial,
was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable
regulations.

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

6.  Since the applicant's record of service included a 48-day AWOL charge
wherein court-martial charges were preferred, his service was not
satisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is
insufficiently meritorious to warrant a general discharge.

7.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 24 February 1986; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 23
February 1989.  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

SK_____  BE_____  RD______  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.




            ___Stanley Kelley_____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050002609                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050901                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19860224                                |
|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]