RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          17 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050003731


      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. Lester Echols                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Denning                  |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette McCants              |     |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 undesirable discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states he was coerced into signing his discharge papers.
He also contends, in effect, that he was beaten during jump school which
left him with medical and mental problems.

3.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of his two applications.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 25 March 1974.  The applications submitted in this case are
dated 30 January 2005 and 24 September 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 13 December 1972 for a period of 3 years for
airborne training.  He successfully completed basic combat training and
advanced individual training.  His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification
Record) shows that he entered basic airborne training on 24 March 1973;
however, there is no indication that he completed this training.  He was
awarded military occupational specialty 05C (radio teletype operator).

4.  On 21 January 1974, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 30 November 1973 to
19 December 1973.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1,
restriction, extra duty, and an oral reprimand.

5.  On 20 February 1974, charges were preferred against the applicant for
two failures to repair and being AWOL from 13 February 1974 to 19 February
1974.  Trial by special court-martial was recommended.

6.  On 28 February 1974, 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 had not been subjected to coercion whatsoever by an person,
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.
 The applicant's defense counsel pointed out that the applicant had
personally made the choices indicated on the request for discharge.  The
applicant elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.  In summary, he
stated that he had nothing but letdowns in the Army, that he flunked out of
jump school because of immaturity, that he went AWOL two times, and that he
had received three Article 15s.  He also stated that mental problems ran in
his family and that it would be best for the service if he got help on the
outside and spent his own money for treatment.

7.  On 5 March 1974, the applicant underwent a separation physical
examination and was found qualified for separation.

8.  On 21 March 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant's
request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable
discharge.

9.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge
on 25 March 1974 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter
10, for the good of the service.  He had served 1 year, 1 month and 16 days
of total active service with 59 days of lost time due to AWOL and
confinement.

10.  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.

11.  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.

12.  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.

13.  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 evidence of record does not support the applicant's contention that
he was coerced into signing his discharge papers.  Evidence of record shows
that on 28 February 1974, after consulting with counsel, the applicant
submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service and indicated
in his request that he had not been subjected to coercion.  His defense
counsel also pointed out that the applicant had personally made the choices
indicated on the request for discharge.

2.  Although the applicant contends that he had medical and mental problems
as a result of a beating in jump school, medical evidence of record shows
he was found qualified for separation on 5 March 1974.

3.  The applicant’s record of service included one nonjudicial punishment
and 59 days of lost time.  As a result, his record of service was not
satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and
performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record
of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant a general discharge or
an honorable discharge.

4.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial,
was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable
regulations.

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

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 25 March 1974; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 24
March 1977.  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

LE_____  _JD_____  JM______  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.




            ___Lester Echols________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050003731                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |200511117                               |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19740325                                |
|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]