RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          8 December 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050003936


      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. Jessie B. Strickland          |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. James B. Gunlicks             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Scott W. Faught               |     |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 that when he enlisted, he was lied to by his
recruiter who conveyed a military life that was not a reality.  The only
way he knew how to escape was to go absent without leave (AWOL).  He no
longer wants to suffer the prejudice of his discharge.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his discharge order and DD Form 214.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 19 November 1971.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 18 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.  He enlisted in Roanoke, Virginia, on 13 April 1971 for a period of 3
years and training in the automotive maintenance career management field.
He was transferred to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to undergo his basic combat
training.

4.  On 30 May 1971, he went AWOL and remained absent until 3 June 1971.  He
again went AWOL on 8 June 1971 and remained absent until 6 July 1971.  On
9 July 1971 he again went AWOL and remained absent until he was returned to
military control at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, on 12 September 1971, where
charges were preferred against him for the AWOL offenses.

5.  On 21 October 1971, he was convicted by a special court-martial of
being AWOL from 30 May to 3 June 1971, from 8 June to 6 July 1971, and from
9 July to 13 September 1971.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor
for 4 months (suspended for 15 days).

6.  On 3 November 1971, the applicant’s commander initiated action to
discharge the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.  He indicated that the applicant joined
the Army out of curiosity and to gain advantage on the draft.  He continued
to go AWOL from basic training due to his inability to adapt to military
life.  He also indicated that the applicant would not return to duty and
would continue to go AWOL if not discharged.  He further indicated that the
applicant indicated he was willing to accept an undesirable discharge.

7.  The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and was deemed
mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and to adhere
to the right.

8.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived all of his rights
and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

9.  On 11 November 1971, the appropriate authority (a major general)
approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished
an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

10.  Accordingly, he received an undesirable discharge with a
characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions on
19 November 1971, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for
unfitness, due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable
nature with civil/military authorities.  He had served 3 months and 29 days
of total active service and had 98 days of lost time due to AWOL.

11.  There is no indication in the available records to show that he ever
applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge
within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

12.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  It
provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of
a discreditable nature with civil and/or military authorities were subject
to separation for unfitness.  An undesirable discharge was normally
considered appropriate.





DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore
were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board; however, they
are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his
misconduct and his otherwise undistinguished record of service during such
a short period of time.

4.  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.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 19 November 1971; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 18 November 1974.  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

__rtd___  __jbg___  __swf___  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.



                                  Richard T. Dunbar
            ______________________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050003936                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051208                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(UD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1971/11/19                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-212/UNFIT. . . . .               |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |UNFIT FI                                |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES                  |583/A51.00                              |
|1.144.5000              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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