RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        18 October 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050003139


      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. Judy L. Blanchard             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John Slone                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin              |     |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 discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he quit school to go into the
Army to serve his country.  He was in Vietnam and he did what he had to do
to survive.  He states, in effect, that he was treated unfairly when he
served on active duty; that he had an attitude as most did, who got into
drugs.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or
injustice, which occurred on 20 April 1970, the date he was separated from
active duty.  The application submitted in this case is dated 2 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 and
entered active duty on 28 February 1970, for a period of 3 years.  He was
trained in, awarded and served in military occupational specialty (MOS)
64C10 (Truck Master).  The highest grade attained was pay grade E-3.

4.  On 6 August 1970, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment for
being absent without leave (AWOL) from 19 July to 5 August 1970.  His
imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $19.00 pay and a reduction to pay
grade E-1.

5.  On 10 December 1971, the applicant was reported for being AWOL, he was
returned to military control on 7 January 1972.  On 8 January 1972, the
applicant was again reported for being AWOL.  On 28 March 1972, he was
returned to military control.

6.  On 31 March 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the
applicant for being AWOL from 10 December 1971 to 27 March 1972.
7.  On 4 April 1972, a medical examination found the applicant fit for
retention.

8.  The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge
proceedings are not in his Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ).
However, the MPRJ does contain a separation document (DD Form 214) that
contains the authority and reason for his discharge.  The applicant
authenticated this document with his signature indicating he was discharged
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, the character
of service was Under Conditions Other Than Honorable and that the reason
for discharge was for the good of the service.

9.  On 20 April 1972, the applicant received an Undesirable Discharge after
completing 1 year, 9 months, and 19 days of active military service and 126
days of time lost.  He was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal, the Republic
of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device 60, two Overseas Service Bar and the
Expert Qualification Badge for the M-16 rifle.

10.  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.

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

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The contentions of the applicant was carefully considered and found to
have insufficient merit in this case.

2.  The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances
surrounding his separation processing.  However, it does contain a properly
constituted DD Form 214 that identifies the reason and characterization of
the applicant’s discharge.  The applicant authenticated this document with
his signature on the date of his separation.  Therefore, Government
regularity in the discharge process is presumed.

3.  In the absence of any evidence of record or independent evidence to the
contrary, it is concluded that all requirements of law and regulation were
met and 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.  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.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 20 April 1972, therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
19 April 1975.  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

___JS  __  __LDS __  __KWL__  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.




                                  ______  John Slone _______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050003139                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051018                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)          |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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