RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          14 December 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050005585


      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. Wanda L. Waller               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John Slone                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Leonard Hassell               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael Flynn                 |     |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 general discharge be upgraded to
honorable.

2.  The applicant states he sincerely regrets and apologizes for his
actions while on active duty.  He contends he had no idea it would have so
much impact on his life now, that he was very young, and he had a drinking
problem.  He states he has been sober for 26 years and maintained
employment as an armed responder at a nuclear plant for 11 and 1/2 years.
He recently relocated and cannot find suitable employment due to his
discharge.

3.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 18 May 1972.  The application submitted in this case is dated
16 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.  The applicant was born on 1 August 1950.  He enlisted on 16 May 1968
for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed basic combat training
and advanced individual training in military occupational specialty 36K
(field wireman).  On 6 April 1969, the applicant was honorably discharged
for immediate reenlistment.  On 7 April 1969, he reenlisted for a period of
3 years.
4.  On 2 April 1970, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) for approximately 21 hours.
 His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, a forfeiture of pay,
restriction, and extra duty.  On 14 April 1970, the punishment of the
forfeiture of pay was remitted.

5.  On 28 December 1970, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for using disrespectful language toward a first sergeant and an
officer and for disobeying a direct order.  His punishment consisted of a
reduction to E-2 and a forfeiture of pay.

6.  On 22 June 1971, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being AWOL from 23 April 1971 to 30 May 1971.  His punishment
consisted of a reduction to E-3.

7.  On 30 August 1971, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for behaving with disrespect toward a superior commissioned
officer, using disrespectful language, and failure to repair.  His
punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 (suspended), a forfeiture of
pay, and correctional custody for 20 days, with 10 days suspended for 3
months.  On 10 September 1971, the suspension of the punishments of
reduction to E-2 and placement in correctional custody for 20 days were
vacated.

8.  On 13 September 1971, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being drunk and disorderly.  His punishment consisted of a
reduction to E-1 and correctional custody for 30 days.  On 6 October 1971,
the punishment of correctional custody for 30 days was remitted.

9.  On 3 December 1971, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being incapacitated for duty due to previous indulgence in
intoxicating liquor.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay,
restriction, and extra duty.

10.  On 30 December 1971, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being AWOL from 13 December to 15 December 1971.  His
punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and correctional custody for 30
days, with 10 days of correctional custody suspended for 3 months.  On 18
January 1972, the suspension of the punishment of placement in correctional
custody for 30 days with 10 days suspended was vacated.

11.  On 3 May 1972, the applicant's commanding officer requested that he be
discharged with a general discharge.  He cited that the applicant had
demonstrated a belligerent attitude toward the military as reflected by his
past history of nonjudicial punishments.  He also cited the applicant's
insubordination, poor duty performance, and unsatisfactory conduct and
efficiency ratings while assigned to his command.

12.  On 18 May 1972, the applicant was released from active duty with a
general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter
2, for expiration term of service.  He had completed 3 years, 10 months,
and 21 days of creditable active service with 42 days lost due to AWOL.

13.  There is no indication in the available records that the applicant
applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within
its 15-year statute of limitations.

14.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Age is not a sufficiently mitigating factor.  Although the applicant
was 17 years old when he enlisted, he successfully completed basic combat
training and advanced individual training.  He was almost 20 years old when
he received his first Article 15.

2.  A discharge is not upgraded for the sole purpose of obtaining
employment opportunities.

3.  The applicant’s record of service during his last enlistment included
seven nonjudicial punishments and 42 days of lost time.  As a result, his
record of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and
performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record
of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 18 May 1972; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 17
May 1975.  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

JS_____  __LH____  MF______  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                 |AR20050005585                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051214                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19720518                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 Chapter 2                    |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Expiration term of service              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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