RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        21 July 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050004599


      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. Alan Chin                     |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John Infante                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert J. Osborn, II          |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Brenda K. Koch                |     |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 her under other than honorable conditions
discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that it has been a long time since she
had been discharged and that she has changed for the better.  She states
that as she gets older she is finding that she is developing medical
conditions that need treatment that she cannot afford.  She requests an
upgrade so she will be eligible for Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA)
medical benefits.

3.  The applicant did not provide any documentary evidence in support of
her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 14 June 1977, the date of her voluntary separation from active
duty.  The application submitted in this case is dated 9 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.  The applicant's service personnel records show she enlisted in the
Regular Army on 4 September 1974 for a period of 3 years.  She successfully
completed basic and advanced individual training and was awarded the
military occupational specialty 76Y10 (Armorer/Unit Supply Specialist).

4.  Records show that on 12 March 1975, the applicant was reported absent
without leave (AWOL), was dropped from the rolls on 11 April 1975, and was
returned to military control on 29 April 1975.

5.  Records show that on 5 May 1975, the applicant was reported AWOL, was
dropped from the rolls on the same day while pending disposition for a
previous AWOL, and was returned to military control on 23 May 1975.  The
applicant was pending a Special Court-Martial for her previous AWOL offense
at the time of this offense.

6.  Records show that on 26 May 1975, the applicant was reported AWOL and
was dropped from the rolls on the same day.

7.  Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Form FD-220a, dated 22 February
1977, shows that on 22 February 1977, the applicant was apprehended in
Hamlet, North Carolina by a FBI agent and was confined in the Richmond
County Jail, Rockingham, North Carolina.

8.  DA Form 3836 (Notice of Return to US Army Member from Unauthorized
Absence), dated 1 March 1977, shows the applicant was returned to military
control on 22 February 1977.

9.  Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps Orders 38-20 [Fort Bragg, North
Carolina], dated 24 February 1977, assigned the applicant to the United
States Army Personnel Control Facility Processing Company, same station,
with an effective date of 22 February 1977.

10.  On 24 February 1977, the applicant's commander preferred court-martial
charges against her for being AWOL from 26 May 1975 to 22 February 1977.

11.  On 9 May 1977, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the
good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation
635-200. The applicant indicated in her request that she understood she
could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an
Undesirable Discharge Certificate, that she may be deprived of many or all
Army benefits, that she may be deprived of her rights and benefits as a
veteran under both Federal and State law.  She also acknowledged that she
may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of a
discharge under other than honorable conditions.

12.  On 9 May 1977, the applicant submitted a statement in her own behalf.
In her statement she acknowledged she was guilty of AWOL and that she
didn't want to take it to court because her chances were very thin.  She
concluded that it was best for her to get out of the Army.

13.  On 13 May 1977, the applicant's unit commander recommended approval of
her discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

14.  On 16 May 1977, the intermediate commander recommended approval with
an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

15.  On 16 May 1977, the applicant submitted a request to withdraw her
request for a chapter 10 discharge because she felt she could be a Soldier
and wanted to be a Soldier.  She further stated that she was willing to pay
for her mistakes any way she could and that she owed it to her country.

16.  On 17 May and 18 May 1977, respectively, the applicant's unit and
intermediate commander recommended disapproval of the applicant's request
to withdraw her request for a chapter 10 discharge.

17.  On 9 June 1977, the Command Staff Judge Advocate recommended
disapproval of the applicant's request to withdraw her request for a
chapter 10 discharge and recommended approval of the request for discharge
with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

18.  The acting commander of XVIII Airborne Corps disapproved the
applicant's request to withdraw her request for a chapter 10 discharge and
subsequently approved the discharge action with an under other than
honorable conditions discharge.  The separation authority's disapproval and
approval endorsements are undated.

19.  On 14 June 1977, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of
chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, with an under other than honorable
conditions discharge.  Her DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active
Duty) reflects she had served 10 months and 9 days of active service and
had 692 days of lost time.

20.  There is no evidence showing that the applicant applied to the Army
Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year
statute of limitations.

21.  Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, 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, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service
in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any
time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's
admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is
authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally
considered appropriate.
22.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, 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.

23.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, 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 her under other than honorable conditions
discharge should be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states that she has changed for the better, warranting a
discharge upgrade.  The applicant did not submit any letters of support
with her application.  Regardless, while post-service conduct may be
noteworthy, good post-service conduct by itself is not sufficient to
overcome her military record of indiscipline, or a basis for upgrading her
discharge.

3.  The applicant requests an upgrade so she will be eligible for DVA
medical benefits.  The ABCMR does not upgrade discharges solely for making
the applicant eligible for benefits.

4.  Records show the applicant voluntarily requested separation under the
provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the
service to avoid trial by court-martial.  In doing so, the applicant
admitted guilt to the offense charged and accepted discharge under other
than honorable conditions in lieu of trial by court-martial.

5.  Evidence of record shows the applicant’s request for discharge was
voluntary, administratively correct, and in compliance with applicable
regulations.

6.  Evidence of record shows that all requirements of law and regulations
were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout
the separation process.

7.  After a review of the applicant’s record of service, it is evident that
her quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and
performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, she is not entitled to
an honorable discharge.

8.  The applicant’s record of service that includes 692 days of lost time
is not satisfactory.  Therefore, she is not entitled to a general
discharge.

9.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 14 June 1977; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
13 June 1980.  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

___JI ___  ___RJO_  __BKK___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  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 Infante_________
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050004599                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |YYYYMMDD                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19770614                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, CHAPTER 10                  |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |IN LIEU OF COURT-MARTIAL                |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |MR. SCHNEIDER                           |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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