RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          23 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050006423


      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. Patrick McGann                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Larry Olson                   |     |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 discharge under other than honorable
conditions be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was young and his excuses for going
absent without leave (AWOL) were immature and uncalled for and he should
have talked his problems over with someone within the chain of command.  He
contends that since his discharge he has done a lot of painting and
carpentry work, worked a lot of overtime, does volunteer work in the
community, and works with a group of drug and alcohol dependent clients.

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 16 April 1980.  The application submitted in this case is
undated; however, the application was received in this office on 27 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 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 15 June 1957.  He enlisted on 26 September
1978 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed One Station Unit
Training in military occupational specialty 12B (combat engineer).

4.  On 4 June 1979, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being derelict in the performance of his duties.  His
punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

5.  On 16 July 1979, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for altering a document (individual sick slip) with intent to
deceive.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 (suspended), a
forfeiture of pay, extra duty, and restriction.

6.  The applicant went AWOL on 26 November 1979 and returned to military
control on 10 December 1979.  He went AWOL again on 11 December 1979 and
returned to military control on 11 February 1980.

7.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are
not contained in the available records.  However, the applicant’s DD Form
214 shows that he was discharged with a discharge under other than
honorable conditions 16 April 1980 under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-
martial.  He had served a total of 1 year, 4 months and 7 days of
creditable active service with   75 days of lost time due to AWOL.

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

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,
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.

10.  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.

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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Age is not a sufficiently mitigating factor.  The applicant was 21
years old when he enlisted and he successfully completed One Station Unit
Training.
2.  Good post-service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a
discharge.

3.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that
the applicant’s separation was administratively correct and in conformance
with applicable regulations.  Without having the discharge packet to
consider, it is presumed his characterization of service was commensurate
with his overall record of service.  As a result, there is no basis for
granting the applicant's request.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 16 April 1980; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 15
April 1983.  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______  PM_____  LO_____  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                 |AR20050006423                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051123                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19800416                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200  Chapter 10                  |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |For the good of the service             |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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