RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          6 October 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050002747


      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, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be
upgraded.

2.  The applicant states he believes he had Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD) when he returned from Vietnam which caused his drinking and drug
use. He also states he is filing for service connected disability
compensation for PTSD with the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).

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 21 March 1973.  The application submitted in this case is dated
7 February 2004.

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 27 February 1970 for a period of 3 years.  He
served as a light weapons infantryman in Vietnam from 17 September 1970
through 23 January 1971 and was honorably discharged on 19 May 1971 for
immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 20 May 1971 for a period of 4
years.

4.  On 10 July 1972, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 26 June 1972 to 10
July 1972.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 (suspended) and
a forfeiture of pay.

5.  The applicant again went AWOL on 8 December 1972 and returned to
military control on 20 February 1973.

6.  On 23 February 1973, the applicant underwent a separation physical
examination and was found qualified for separation.  He reported that his
health was "Good" in item 8 (Statement of Examinee's Present Health and
Medications Currently Used) on his Standard Form 93 (Report of Medical
History).

7.  On 26 February 1973, charges were preferred against the applicant for
the second AWOL period.  Trial by special court-martial was recommended.

8.  On 6 March 1973, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted
a request for discharge for the good of the service (in lieu of trial by
court-martial) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.
 He indicated in his request that he understood that he could be discharged
under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable
Discharge Certificate, that he might be deprived of many or all Army
benefits, that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered
by the Veterans Administration and that he might be deprived of his rights
and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He also
acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life
because of an undesirable discharge.  He elected not to submit a statement
in his own behalf.

9.  On 13 March 1973, the separation authority approved the applicant's
request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable
discharge.

10.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable
discharge on 21 March 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served 2 years, 9 months
and 27 days of total active service with 88 days of lost time due to AWOL.


11.  There is no evidence in the applicant's service personnel records
which show that he was diagnosed with PTSD prior to his discharge.

12.  There is no evidence in the applicant's service personnel records
which shows the applicant was diagnosed with alcohol or drug abuse or
dependency.

13.  On 11 April 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the
applicant's request for an honorable discharge.

14.  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.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be
resolved in favor of the individual.

16.  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.

17.  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.  The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing
that applicants to the ADRB are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there,
and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185,
paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined
that the 3 year limit on filing to the ABCMR should commence on the date of
final action by the ADRB.  In complying with this decision, the ABCMR has
adopted the broader policy of calculating the 3-year time limit from the
date of exhaustion in any case where a lower level administrative remedy is
utilized.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the applicant contends he had PTSD when he returned from
Vietnam, there is no evidence of record which shows that the applicant was
diagnosed with PTSD or a similar condition prior to his discharge on 21
March 1973.  Medical evidence of record shows that the applicant was found
qualified for separation and that he reported his health was "Good" on 23
February 1973.

2.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant was diagnosed
with alcohol or drug abuse or dependency prior to his discharge.

3.  A discharge is not upgraded for the purpose of obtaining DVA benefits.

4.  The applicant’s record of service included one nonjudicial punishment
and 88 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.
5.  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.

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

7.  Records show the applicant exhausted his administrative remedies in
this case when his case was last reviewed by the ADRB on 11 April 1985.  As
a result, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of
any error or injustice to this Board expired on 10 April 1988.  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 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                 |AR20050002747                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051006                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19730321                                |
|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]