RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          26 October 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050003456


      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:

|     |Mr. James Vick                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Conrad Meyer                  |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Linda 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 “general” discharge be upgraded to
honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was told at the time of his
discharge his discharge would be upgraded.  He contends that he was
discharged due to chemical dependency which began during his military
service.  He also states that after nearly 20 years of a sober/clean life
he would like this resolved.

3.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 16 October 1971.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 24 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 was inducted on 19 November 1969.  He was honorably
discharged on 25 November 1969 to enlist in the Regular Army.  He enlisted
on 26 November 1969 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed
basic combat training and advanced individual training in military
occupational specialty 26V (radio electrician).

4.  On 19 November 1970, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for failure to repair.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture
of pay and restriction.

5.  On 9 February 1971, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment consisted of a
forfeiture of pay and restriction.

6.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are
not contained in the available records.  However, the applicant's DD Form
214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending 16 October 1971
shows that he was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 16 October
1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the
good of the service.  He had served 1 year, 2 months, and 1 day of
creditable active service with 197 days of lost time due to AWOL.

7.  There is no evidence in the applicant’s service personnel records which
shows that he was diagnosed with alcohol or drug abuse or dependency prior
to his discharge on 16 October 1971.

8.  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.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that
regulation provided, in pertinent part, that a member who had committed an
offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive
discharge might at any time after the charges had 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.

10.  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.

11.  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.

12.  The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to
automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits
when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted
if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason
for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.




DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the applicant contends that he was discharged with a general
discharge, evidence of record shows he was discharged with an undesirable
discharge.

2.  A discharge upgrade is not automatic.

3.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant was diagnosed
with alcohol or drug abuse or dependency prior to his discharge.

4.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that
the applicant’s separation was administratively correct and in conformance
with applicable regulations.  Without having the discharge packet to
consider, it is presumed his characterization of service was commensurate
with his overall record of service.  As a result, there is no basis for
granting the applicant's request.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 16 October 1971; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 15
October 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

JV_____  CM_____  LB_______  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.




            ____James Vick_____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050003456                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051026                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19711016                                |
|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.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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