RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        13 December 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050005912


      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. Judy L. Blanchard             |     |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, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be
upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was told that his discharge
would be upgraded to an honorable discharge within 6 months after being
discharged.  He believes that he was lied too and misguided into taking
this discharge.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or
injustice, which occurred on 9 May 1969, the date he was separated from
active duty.  The application submitted in this case is dated 12 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 record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 25 October 1966, for a period of 3 years.  He was
trained in, awarded and served in military occupational specialty (MOS)
63B10 (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).  The highest grade he attained was pay
grade E-3.

4.  On 11 October 1968, the applicant was convicted by a Special Court-
Martial of four specifications of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 3
June to
15 July 1968, from 20 to 27 July 1968, from 17 to 31August 1968 and from 11
to
30 September 1968.  His imposed punishment was confinement at hard labor
for 3 months (suspended for 3 months), a forfeiture of $46.00 pay per month
for
6 months and a reduction to pay grade E-1.

5.  On 2 November 1968, the applicant was reported for being AWOL.  He was
returned to military control on 23 February 1969.  The applicant’s record
indicates that court-martial charges were being preferred against the
applicant for being AWOL, however, on 17 March 1969, he went AWOL again.
He was returned to military control on 23 March 1969 and placed in pretrial
confinement the following day.

6.  On 24 April 1969, a medical examination found the applicant physically
fit for retention.

7.  The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge
proceedings are not in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
However, his file does contain a separation document (DD Form 214) that
contains the authority and reason for his discharge.  The applicant
authenticated this document with his signature indicating he was discharged
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, with an
undesirable discharge, his character of service was under other than
honorable conditions and the reason for discharge was for the good of the
service.

8.  On 9 May 1969, the applicant was discharged under the provision of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service.  He had completed
1 year, 10 months, and 5 days of active military service and 253 days of
time lost.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 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 at
any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for
discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
An undesirable discharge was then normally considered appropriate.

10.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army
Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year
statute of limitations.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The contentions of the applicant were carefully considered and found to
have insufficient merit in this case.

2.  The applicant contends that he was told that his discharge would be
automatically upgraded within 6 months of his separation were carefully
considered.  However, the Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy
to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own
merits when an applicant submits an application to the Army Discharge
Review Board or this Board requesting a change in discharge.  Changes may
be warranted if either Board determines that the characterization of
service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.


3.  The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances
surrounding his separation processing.  However, it does contain a properly
constituted DD Form 214 that identifies the type, reason and
characterization of the applicant’s discharge.  The applicant authenticated
this document with his signature on the date of his separation.  Therefore,
Government regularity in the discharge process is presumed.

4.  In the absence of any evidence of record or independent evidence to the
contrary, it is concluded that all requirements of law and regulation were
met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the
separation process. Further, the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects
his overall record of service.

5.  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.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 9 May 1969, therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
8 May 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

__SLP __  __MHM__  __ALR __  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                 |AR20050005912                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051213                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |( DENY)                                 |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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