RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        23 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050003753


      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:

|     |Mr. John Slone                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr.        |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Larry J. Olson                |     |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 the time he served was honorable
and his discharge should be changed.  He further states, that he left the
service because he was underage.

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 10 July 1975.  The application submitted in
this case is dated
10 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 30 August 1974, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army at the
age of 17; at the time of enlistment, both of the applicant’s parents were
deceased.  The applicant’s older sister erroneously signed as his legal
guardian.  The applicant completed the required training and was awarded
military occupational specialty 16P10 (Chaparral Crewmember).  The highest
grade he achieved was pay grade E-2.

4.  On 24 February 1975, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) for leaving without authority his appointed place of duty.  His
imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $50.00 pay and 14 days extra duty.

5.  On 24 March 1975, the applicant accepted NJP for being absent without
leave (AWOL) on two occasions from 4 to 6 March 1975 and from 14 to 17
March 1975, for failure to repair, and for disobeying a lawful order.  His
imposed punishment was 21 days in correctional custody.

6.  On 8 May 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the
applicant for two occasions of leaving his appointed place of duty without
proper authority and for being AWOL from 23 to 24 April 1975 and from 28
April to 12 May 1975.

7.  On 16 June 1975, the applicant’s unit commander submitted separation
action to eliminate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 7, by reason of being under age (minority).  The reason
for the separation action cited by the commander was the applicant’s record
that he had so far established which included; numerous counseling
sessions; numerous AWOLs, and his lack of maturity.  It was also determined
that It would be in the best interest of both the applicant and the United
States Army to discharge him under the provision of Army Regulation 635-
200, chapter 7, as expeditiously as possible.  Rehabilitative efforts were
attempted unsuccessfully.  None of the efforts had any effect in attempting
to rehabilitate the applicant; therefore, it was recommended that the
applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

8.  The applicant acknowledged that he had received the separation
notification and indicated that he was voluntarily accepting discharge from
the Army and waived his right to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He
also acknowledged that he understood that if he received a GD, he could
encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life, and he acknowledged that
he had been provided the opportunity to consult with a Judge Advocate
General Corps (JAGC) officer.

9.  The applicant’s unit commander completed a second endorsement
confirming that he had personally counseled the applicant concerning the
discharge.  On
24 June 1975, the separation authority approved the separation action and
directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 7, as to minority discharge and be furnished a
General Discharge Certificate.  On 10 July 1975, the applicant was
discharged accordingly.

10.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his discharge,
confirms that he was separated under the provisions of paragraph chapter 7-
5b, Army Regulation 635-200, as to minority.  It also shows that at the
time, he had completed a total of 9 months and 20 days of active military
and 21 days of time lost.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 7, paragraph 7-
5b, of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a minor who
enlisted without the consent of his parents or guardian may be discharged
for minority.  Soldiers separated under this chapter may be awarded an
honorable discharge, or a general discharge, or a discharge under other
than honorable conditions.  If in an entry level status the
characterization will be uncharacterized.

12.  There is no indication in the applicant’s record that he applied for
an upgrade of his discharge to the Army Discharge Review Board within its
15 year statute of limitations.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered and were found to
be insufficient in merit.  After carefully evaluating the evidence of
record in this case, it is determined that the applicant’s discharge
processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation in
effect at the time and that the character of his discharge is commensurate
with his overall record of military service.  All requirements of law and
regulation were met and that the applicant’s rights were protected
throughout the separation process.  Therefore, it is concluded that the
requested relief is not warranted.

2.  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.

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 10 July 1975.  Therefore, the time for
him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 9
July 1978.  However, he 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

___JS  __  __PHM__  __LJO___  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.




                                  _____    John Slone________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050003753                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051123                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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