RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:

      BOARD DATE:        25 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050003115


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Victoria A. Donaldson        |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Margaret K. Patterson         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald E. Blakely             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Linda M. Barker               |     |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 under other than honorable conditions
discharge be upgraded to a general under honorable conditions discharge.

2.  The applicant states he was repeatedly passed over for promotions
though qualified except for required education.  The applicant also states
he had serious mental problems.

3.  The applicant provided a DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States
Report of Transfer or Discharge), effective 3 September 1971; a DD Form 214
(Report of Separation from Active Duty) effective 19 July 1977; a DD Form
214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), with the
separation date 25 February 1982; and a copy of Department of the Army
letter Orders Number 07-1249980, dated 24 July 1974, in support of this
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 25 February 1982, the date of his discharge from active
duty.  The application submitted in this case is undated; however, it was
received by the ABCMR on 1 March 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 he enlisted in the Regular Army on 30
August 1968 for a period of three years.  He was trained in, awarded and
served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B20 (Cook) and the
highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist
four/pay grade E-4.  The applicant's records also show he reenlisted on two
occasions.

4.  Records show the applicant served in the Republic of Vietnam during the
period 1 November 1969 through 20 October 1970 and while he was stationed
in Vietnam he participated in three campaigns.

5.  The applicant’s records show he received numerous awards including the
National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal with 3 bronze
service stars, and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal.

6.  The record reveals a disciplinary history which includes his acceptance
of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on the following two separate
occasions for the offenses indicated:  31 January 1977, for leaving his
weapon unsecured and 14 March 1977 for being absent without leave (AWOL)
during the period 27 February 1977 through 13 March 1977.

7.  The applicant's DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows he
was also AWOL during the period 23 October 1979 through 20 January 1982
when he was returned to military control.

8.  On 27 January 1982, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was
advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the
maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible
effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the
procedures and rights that were 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.

9.  In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he
understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the
charge against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized
the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He further
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.

10.  On 12 February 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
request for discharge and directed that he receive an under other than
honorable conditions discharge.  On 25 February 1982, the applicant was
discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he
completed a total of 10 years, 5 months, and 19 days of creditable active
military service and that he accrued 834 days of time lost due to AWOL.


11.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army
Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year
statue of limitations.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) 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 trail by court-
martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally
considered appropriate.

13.  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.

14.  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.  The applicant contends his under other than honorable conditions
discharge should be upgraded to a general under honorable conditions
discharge because he was qualified for promotions with exception of the
education requirements but was repeatedly passed over and because he had
serious mental problems.

2.  There is no evidence in the available records and the applicant has not
provided sufficient evidence which supports his contention that he had
serious mental problems.




3.  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 from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All
requirements of law and regulation were met, the rights of the applicant
were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the
applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

4.  The applicant's record of service included two nonjudical punishments
for various offenses including being AWOL and failure to secure his weapon.

5.  Based on this record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly
does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty
for Army personnel.  This misconduct and lost time also renders his service
unsatisfactory. Therefore, he is not entitled to either a general discharge
or an honorable discharge.

6.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, 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.

7.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 25 February 1982.  Therefore, the time
for him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired
on 24 February 1985.  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

_MKP___  _REB____  __LMB__  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.




                                        _M. K. Patterson________
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050003115                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050825                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1982/02/25                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 Chap 10                      |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.0000.0000                           |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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