RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        13 December 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050003348


      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             |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Fowler             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Shirley L. Powell             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Melvin H. Meyer               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Allen L. 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 reenlistment code be
changed to
"RE-1," his discharge be upgraded to honorable, and the reason for
separation be changed to "convenience of government" on his DD Form 214
(Report of Separation from Active Duty) with the period ending 3 July 1973.

2.  The applicant states that at the time of his discharge he was young and
influenced by older Soldiers coming back from Vietnam.  He further states
that his discharge was for only minor infractions.

3.  The applicant continues that since his discharge he has quit taking
drugs, graduated from college, and has taken several trades.  He further
states that he wishes to have his discharge upgraded to an honorable or
general so that he may use his veteran's benefits to start his own business
and purchase a home.

4.  The applicant provides no documentation in support of this application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of alleged errors which occurred
on
3 November 1975.  The application submitted in this case is dated 4 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.  On 4 June 1956, the applicant was born.  He enlisted in the Regular
Army on 19 July 1974 and successfully completed basic training and advanced
individual training.  He was awarded military occupational specialty 11B
(Infantryman).

4.  On 9 January 1975, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for wrongful
possession of marijuana.

5.  On 10 March 1975, the applicant was convicted by a special court-
martial of AWOL for the period 20 January 1975 through 25 March 1975.  His
sentence consisted of confinement at hard labor for 45 days, reduction to
the grade of private/pay grade E-2 and forfeiture of $100.00 for two
months.  On 12 May 1975, the approved sentence of forfeiture of $100.00 for
two months was suspended by the approval authority.

6.  Records show that the applicant was AWOL for the period 10 March 1975
through 3 April 1975.

7.  On 22 August 1975, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ
for failure to be at his appointed place of duty.

8.  On 28 August 1975, the applicant’s commander signed an elimination
packet on the applicant for separation under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) for unfitness.  The reason cited
by the commander was the applicant’s frequent incidents of a discreditable
nature with civil or military authorities.

9.  On 6 October 1975, the applicant was advised by consulting counsel of
the basis for the contemplated separation action.  The applicant was
advised of the impact of the discharge action.  The applicant signed a
statement indicating that he was advised he was being recommended for
discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200.  The applicant
declined counsel, waived his right to be heard by a board of officers, and
declined to submit a statement on his own behalf.

10.  On 15 October 1975, the appropriate authority approved the
recommendation and directed the applicant receive an undesirable discharge
certificate.

11.  Records show that the applicant was AWOL during the period 20 October
1975 through 3 November 1975, the date of his separation.

12.  On 3 November 1975, the applicant was separated under the provisions
of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200.  He had completed 1 year,
1 month, and 12 days of creditable active service and had 65 days lost time
due to AWOL.
His DD Form 214 shows in item 9a (Type of Separation) the entry "Para 13-
5a(1) AR 635-200 SPD: JLB" and in item 10 (Reenlistment Code) the entry "RE-
3" (ineligible for enlistment without a waiver).

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, then in effect, contained
the policy and outlined the procedures for separating individuals for
unfitness when they were involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable
nature with civil or military authorities and it was established that
further efforts at rehabilitation were unlikely to succeed or they are not
amenable to rehabilitation measures.

14.  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.

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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his undesirable discharge should be
upgraded.

2.  Records show that the applicant was 18 years, 5 months, and 5 days old
at the time of his first offense and almost 20 years old at the time of his
discharge.  He successfully completed basic combat training and advanced
individual training and knew the Army's standards of conduct.  Therefore,
his contention that he was young at the time of his offenses does not
mitigate his indiscipline.

3.  The applicant stated that he needed his reentry code and narrative
reason changed on his DD Form 214 so that he may start his own business and
purchase a home.  However, the ABCMR does not grant relief solely for the
purpose of gaining business or purchase opportunities.  The applicant was
given the proper reenlistment code given the circumstances of his case.

4.  Evidence shows the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in
accordance with the regulations in effect at the time.  Lacking evidence to
the contrary, it is determined that all requirements of law and regulations
were met
and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the
separation process.

5.  The applicant's records show that he was convicted by one special
court-martial, received two Article 15s, and had three instances of AWOL.
The applicant had completed only 1 year, 1 month and 12 days of creditable
active service with a total of 65 days lost due to AWOL.  Based on these
facts, the applicant’s service clearly did not meet the standards of
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel which are
required for issuance of an honorable or general discharge.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 3 November 1975; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
2 November 1978.  However, 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 ___  _ MHM __  __ALR___  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.




                                  ___ Ms. Shirley L. Powell ____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050003348                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |13 December 2005                        |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |100.0300.0000                           |
|2.                      |110.0200.0000                           |
|3.                      |144.0153.0000                           |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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