RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          13 December 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050003290


      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:

|     |Ms. Shirley Powell                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Melvin Meyer                  |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Allen Raub                    |     |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 to a general discharge or a medical discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, after basic training his knees were
"about shot," that he had abnormal cartilage, and that his knees had been
crushed between two trucks.  He also claims that he had severe chest pains
and that he was given medication for it.  He further states that he went
absent without leave (AWOL) because of his medical conditions.

3.  The applicant provides three service medical records; instructions for
an implantable cardiac defibrillator procedure; a copy of his DD Form 214
(Report of Transfer or Discharge); and a letter, dated 14 February 2005,
from a Member of Congress.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 11 June 1971.  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 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 12 February 1968 for a period of 3 years. He
successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual
training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11C (infantry) and was
later awarded MOS 64A (light vehicle driver).

4.  On 8 March 1969, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for violating a lawful regulation.  His punishment consisted of a
forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

5.  On 20 April 1970, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for missing movement through neglect and breaking restriction.
His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2.

6.  The applicant went AWOL on 6 July 1970 and returned to military control
on 20 November 1970.  He went AWOL again on 1 December 1970, was
apprehended by civil authorities, and returned to military control on 8
April 1971.

7.  The first record of a complaint of chest pains in a service medical
record is dated 10 April 1971.

8.  On 26 April 1971, charges were preferred against the applicant for the
AWOL periods.

9.  On 27 April 1971, after consulting with counsel, the applicant
submitted a request for 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 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 to submit a statement in his own behalf;
however, his statement is not in the available records.

10.  Service medical records show the applicant had a history of chest
pains and that he was on medication.  However, on 29 April 1971, the
applicant underwent a separation physical examination and was found
qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111111.  Items 29
(Heart) and 37 (Lower extremities) on his Standard Form 88 (Report of
Medical Examination), dated 29 April 1971, were rated normal.

11.  On 27 May 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable
discharge.

12.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable
discharge on 11 June 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served 2 years, 7 months
and 7 days of total active service with 267 days of lost time due to AWOL.


13.  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.

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 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.

16.  Chapter 7 (Physical Profiling) of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of
Medical Fitness) provides that the basic purpose of the physical profile
serial system is to provide an index to the overall functional capacity of
an individual and is used to assist the unit commander and personnel
officer in their determination of what duty assignments the individual is
capable of performing, and if reclassification action is warranted.  Four
numerical designations (1-4) are used to reflect different levels of
functional capacity in six factors (PULHES):     P-physical capacity or
stamina, U-upper extremities, L-lower extremities,           H-hearing and
ears, E-eyes, and S-psychiatric.  Numerical designator "1" under all
factors indicates that an individual is considered to possess a high level
of medical fitness and, consequently, is medically fit for any military
assignment.

17.  Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of
Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of
physical disability.  The unfitness is of such a degree that a Soldier is
unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating in such a
way as to reasonably fulfill the purposes of his employment on active duty.
 Paragraph 4-3 states that an enlisted Soldier may not be referred for, or
continue, disability processing when action has been started under any
regulatory provision which authorizes a characterization of service of
under other than honorable conditions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the applicant contends that he had medical conditions (heart
and knees) prior to his discharge, he was found qualified for separation on
29 April 1971 with a physical profile of 111111.  Also, his heart and lower
extremities were rated as normal by competent medical authorities.  There
is no evidence of record to show he was ever medically unfit to perform his
duties.  In addition, since he separated under a regulatory provision that
authorized a characterization of discharge of under other than honorable
conditions, it does not appear he was eligible for physical disability
processing.  Therefore, there is no basis for a medical discharge.

2.  Since the applicant’s record of service included two nonjudicial
punishments and 267 days of lost time, his record of service was not
satisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is
insufficiently meritorious to warrant a general discharge.

3.  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.

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

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 11 June 1971; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 10
June 1974.  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

SP_____  _MM_____  _AR____  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.




            ___Shirley Powell_____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050003290                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051213                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19710611                                |
|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.                      |108.0000                                |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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