RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:                              22 DEC 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:         AR20050004752


      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. Ted Kanamine                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert Duecaster              |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette McPherson            |     |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 all of the blocks on his DD
Form 214 be completed and that he be provided an explanation of why he
received a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states that the DD Form 214 is supposed to be a legal
document and yet his DD Form 214 has many blank areas that need to be
completed.  He goes on to state that blocks 2, 14, 16, 17 18, and 19 are
not completed and there is no explanation in block 13a. to explain why he
got a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 27 November 1972.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 11 January 2005 and was received on 28 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 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 was inducted at Sioux Fall, South Dakota, on 11 December 1968 and
was transferred to Fort Lewis, Washington, to undergo his basic combat
training (BCT).  On 16 December 1968, he was honorably discharged for the
purpose of enlisting in the Regular Army.

4.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 December 1968 for a period of 3
years. He completed his BCT and was transferred to Fort Eustis, Virginia,
to undergo his advanced individual training (AIT) as a helicopter
repairman.

5.  He completed his AIT and was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 25 May
1969.  He was transferred to Vietnam on 27 June 1969 for assignment to
Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 7th Squadron, 1st Air Cavalry Squadron
for duty as a door gunner.
6.  On 16 February 1970, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against
him for disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment consisted of a
forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

7.  On 1 March 1970, NJP was imposed against him for being absent without
leave (AWOL) and misappropriation of a government vehicle.  His punishment
consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3, a forfeiture of pay and
extra duty.

8.  On 11 April 1970, he was convicted by a special court-martial of
wrongfully appropriating a ¾ ton military truck and being absent from his
unit.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1,
confinement for 2 months (suspended for 3 months), hard labor for 2 months
(suspended for 3 months) and a forfeiture of pay.  On 11 June 1970, the
suspended portion of his sentence pertaining to confinement at hard labor
was vacated.

9.  On 15 April 1970, NJP was imposed against him for being absent without
leave (AWOL) and misappropriation of a government vehicle.  His punishment
consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

10.  On 16 April 1970, the applicant’s commander submitted a request to bar
the applicant from reenlistment.  He cited the applicant’s repeated acts of
misconduct, his disciplinary record, his failure to respond to repeated
counseling sessions and his unsatisfactory conduct and efficiency ratings
as the basis for his recommendation.  The applicant declined the
opportunity to submit a  statement in his own behalf and the appropriate
authority approved the bar to reenlistment on 19 May 1970.

11.  He departed Vietnam on 26 June 1970 and was transferred to Germany on
12 August 1970.  On 18 January 1971, he went AWOL and remained absent until
he was returned to military control at Fort Carson, Colorado on 8 March
1971.

12.  On 18 March 1971, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him
for the AWOL offense.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and
restriction.

13.  He again went AWOL from Fort Carson on 3 June 1971 and remained absent
until he was returned to military control at Fort Carson on 10 December
1971.  He was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 3
June to 10 December 1971 on 17 February 1972.  He was sentenced to a
reduction to the pay grade of E-1, confinement at hard labor for 60 days
and a forfeiture of pay.  The convening authority approved the findings and
sentence of the special court-martial but suspended the portion of the
sentence adjudging confinement at hard labor until 15 June 1972, unless
sooner vacated.  However, on 5 April 1972, the suspended portion of the
sentence to confinement at hard labor was vacated.

14.  The applicant departed AWOL on 3 April 1972 and remained absent until
he was returned to military control on 10 September 1972.  Charges were
preferred against him for the AWOL charges on 15 September 1972.

15.  On 19 September 1972, after consulting with counsel, the applicant
submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of
trial by court-martial.  In his request he stated that he understood that
he may be discharged with an undesirable discharge, that he understood the
prejudice he may be subjected to as a result of such a discharge, that he
understood that he would be deprived of many or all benefits and that he
was not subjected to coercion by anyone to submit such a request.  He also
elected to submit a statement in his own behalf whereas he asserted that he
had no rehabilitation potential, that he believed he was mistreated by the
Army because he was low in rank and the Army had too many chiefs and little
braves and that he did not care what kind of discharge he received but he
preferred an honorable discharge.

16.  On 19 October 1972, the appropriate authority (a brigadier general)
approved his request and directed that he be issued an Undesirable
Discharge Certificate.

17.  Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions
on 27 November 1972, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 3 years, 3
months and 8 days of total active service and had 410 days of lost time due
to AWOL and confinement.

18.  His DD Form 214 issued at the time of his discharge shows no entries
in box 2, under “Service Number”, box 14, under District Area Command or
Corps to which Reservist Transferred, and boxes 16, 17 18,19, which relate
to his Reserve Obligation.  Block 13a contains the applicant’s
characterization of service “Under conditions other than honorable.”

19.  Block 11c of the applicant’s DD Form 214 contains the reason and
authority for his separation and contains the entry “AR 635-200 SPN 246 For
the Good of the Service.”
20.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an
upgrade of his discharge on 11 January 1974 and that board found that his
discharge was both proper and equitable and denied his request on 6
February 1974.

21.  Army Regulation 635-5, in effect at the time, served as the authority
for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It provides, in pertinent part,
that effective 1 July 1969, service members in the Army would no longer be
identified through the use of a service number.  Soldiers would be
identified through the use of the Social Security Account Number (SSAN).
That regulation also provided that information blocks contained on the DD
Form 214 that were not applicable to individuals being separated from
active duty would contain the entry “NA” to denote “Not Applicable.”  For
individuals who were discharged in lieu of being transferred to a Reserve
Component, no entries were required.

22.  Army Regulation 635=-5-1 provides a listing of Separation Program
Numbers (SPN) that will be used to denote the reason for separation.  SPN
246 indicates that an individual was separated for the good of the service
in lieu of trial by court-martial.

23.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the 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 charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge
for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A condition
of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must indicate
that they are submitting the request of their own free will, without
coercion from anyone and that they have been briefed and understand the
consequences of such a request as well as the discharge they might receive.
 A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered
appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to
avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in
conformance with applicable regulations.  There were no violations of any
of the applicant’s rights.

2.  The applicant was discharged at a time in which the service number was
no longer used and thus was left blank.  He was not transferred to a
Reserve Component and there all of that data was also left blank.  His DD
Form 214 contains the narrative reason and authority for his separation.
Accordingly, there appears to be no basis to approve his request.

3.  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.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 27 November 1972; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 26 November 1975.  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

____TK__  ___RD __  ___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.

            _____Ted Kanamine_________________
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050004752                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/12/22                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1972/11/27                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-299, SPNz246                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |FOR GOOD OF THE SERVCE                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 150-185                              |
|ISSUES                  |189/corr 214                            |
|1.110.0000              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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