RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        13 December 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050004976


      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. Joyce A. Wright               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Shirley L. Powell             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Melvin H. Meyer               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Allen L. Raub                 |     |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 (UD) be upgraded
to honorable.

2.  The applicant states that he was falsely accused of what was claimed;
he "never did the Pap-Smear."

3.  The applicant provides no documentation in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 11 June 1969, the date of his discharge.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 24 March 2005, but was received on 4 April
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 military records show he entered active duty on
31 August 1964, as a medical specialist (91B).

4.  On 16 February 1965, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 12 to
16 February 1965.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and
3 days restriction and extra duty.

5.  He served in Korea from 6 March 1965 to 1 March 1966.  He was promoted
to specialist (SP4/E-4) on 14 May 1966.  He was honorably discharged on
11 December 1966 for the purpose of reenlistment.

6.  The applicant reenlisted on 12 December 1966.  He was promoted to
specialist five (SP5/E-5 [T (temporary)] on 31 March 1967.  He served in
Hawaii from 26 July 1967 to 25 July 1970.



7.  Between 24 October 1968 and 23 May 1969, he received nonjudicial
punishment on three occasions under Article 15, UCMJ, for a dishonored
check, failure to go to his appointed place of duty, and for carrying a
deadly weapon.   His punishments consisted of a reduction to pay grade E-3,
forfeitures of pay, oral reprimand, and restriction and extra duties.

8.  All the documents containing the facts and circumstances surrounding
the applicant's discharge are not present in the available records.
However, his DD Form 214, dated 11 June 1969, shows he was discharged under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the
service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, in the pay grade of E-1.  He
was furnished an UD certificate. He had a total of 3 years, 9 months, and
8 days of creditable service and 3 days of lost time due to AWOL.

9.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year
statute of limitations.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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, may submit a request for
discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered
appropriate.  However, at the time of the applicant’s separation the
regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable
discharge.

11.  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.

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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that
the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance
with applicable regulations, with no procedural errors, which would tend to
jeopardize his rights.

2.  The applicant’s record is void of facts and circumstances concerning
the events that led to his discharge from the Army.

3.  The Board noted that the applicant’s record contains a properly
constituted DD Form 214 which was authenticated by the applicant’s
signature.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the
discharge and the Board presumed Government regularity in the discharge
process.

4.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the
provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu
of trial by court-martial.

5.  It is apparent, from the authority for the applicant's discharge,
that charges were preferred against the applicant; however, these
documents are not available for review and the applicant failed to
provide this information to the Board.  There is no evidence, and the
applicant has provided none, upon which to base an upgrade of his UD.

6.  The applicant alleges that he was falsely accused of what was claimed.
Since all documents related to his discharge are not available, it is
unknown what was claimed.

7.  There is no evidence in the applicant's records, and the applicant has
provided none, to show that he applied for an upgrade of his discharge to
the ADRB within its 15-year statute of limitations.

8.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 11 June 1969; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 10 June 1972.  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

_ALR____  _MM____  __SLP__  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.




                                  _____Shirley L. Powell_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050004976                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051213                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19690611                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, CHAP 10                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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