RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        10 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050003278


      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:

|     |Ms. Margaret K. Patterson         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |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 to an
honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he went into the service to honor
his country.

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 17 November 1977, the date he was separated
from active duty.  The application submitted in this case is dated 14
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 he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 1 June 1976, for a period of 4 years.  He was
trained in, awarded and served in military occupational specialty (MOS)
11B10 (Infantryman).  The highest grade attained was pay grade E-3.

4.  On 27 July 1977, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment for the
willful destruction of two speakers valued of about $175.00, the property
of another Soldier.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $100.00 pay
(suspended for 6 months) and 14 days restriction (suspended for 6 months).
On 11 October 1977, the suspension of the punishment of a $100.00 pay and
restriction for
14 days were hereby vacated and duly executed.

5.  On 4 November 1977, court-martial charges were preferred against the
applicant for arson.  However, the particulars surrounding the incident are
missing from his files.

6.  On 7 November 1977, a medical examination found the applicant fit for
duty or separation.

7.  On 10 November 1977, a Report of Mental Status Evaluation found the
applicant mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and
had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.
 The applicant was found fit for retention or separation.

8.  The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge
proceedings are not in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
However, the OPMF 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 Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) and that the
reason for discharge was for the good of the service.

9.  On 17 November 1977, the applicant was discharged under the provision
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service.  He had
completed 1 year, 5 months, and 17 days of active military service.

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 UOTHC conditions is normally considered appropriate.

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
statute of limitations.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The contentions of the applicant were 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 17 November 1977, therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
16 November 1980.  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

__MKP__  __LDS __  __MJF  __  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.




                                   __Margaret K. Patterson__
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050003278                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051110                                |
|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]