RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        14 December 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050006528


      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 general discharge (GD [under honorable
conditions]) be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states that he was unaware, while attempting to register
his vehicle and purchase the "Veterans Plates", that his discharge was
"under honorable conditions" when he presented his DD Form 214 (Report of
Transfer or Discharge).  He was thoroughly embarrassed in front of several
people when the clerk told him that "under honorable conditions" was not an
honorable discharge.  He became really confused and upset with the
situation.

3.  He states that when he was discharged, he was told that he was getting
an honorable discharge.  At the time of his discharge, the following events
occurred: (a) His mother, the sole supporter of his younger brother and
sister, had taken a bad fall and was in the hospital partially paralyzed
with head and back injuries; (b) His wife served him with divorce papers;
and (c) His original enlistment was to become a helicopter pilot.  After a
series of test at the reception center, he was told he was eligible to
attend the United States Military Academy (USMA), West Point, after
attending prep school for a year.  He in turn signed documents giving up
his original enlistment choice.  He was later notified that he was
ineligible for West Point because he was married.  This in turn invalidated
that choice, and he was then given the option of attending infantry Officer
Candidate School (OCS).  He attempted to retrieve his slot in flight school
but was told that all classes were full.  He later became overwhelmed.

4.  While in Germany, he was told that the Army had not lived up to the
terms of his enlistment by not allowing him to continue with flight school,
plus the other issues that came to bear and they offered him a discharge.
Once again, he was informed that it was an "honorable discharge."  He was
extremely proud of his time in the military, supported each and every
serving individual, and would enter again if he was needed.  He is now
asking that his DD Form 214 be corrected to show "Honorable Discharge."

5.  The applicant provides no documentation in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 12 March 1968, the date of his discharge.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 21 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 (AD) on
23 January 1967, as a Single-Rotor Turbine Utility Helicopter Repairman, in
military occupation specialty (MOS) 67N, for a period of 3 years, with an
established expiration of term of service (ETS) of 22 January 1970.

4.  The applicant's records contain a copy of Headquarters (Hqs), US Army
Reception Station, Special Orders Number 24, dated 30 January 1967, which
shows that the applicant was approved for OCS with a reporting date of
28 January 1967.  His records also contain a statement, signed by the
applicant on 30 January 1967.  It stated that, in connection with his
application for OCS, he waived his enlistment choice of MOS 67N, effective
the date his name was reported to Department of the Army (DA) as eligible
for selection for OCS.  He fully understood that by signing this waiver, he
would not be granted his enlistment commitment in the event he failed to be
selected for OCS, or if selected, in the event he failed to satisfactorily
complete OCS.  He further understood that this waiver was effective on the
date his name was reported to the Adjutant General (AG) as a qualified
applicant.

5.  The applicant's records contain a copy of his National Agency Check,
dated 31 January 1967, which shows that he was married.

6.  The applicant's records contain a copy of Hqs, US Army School/Training
Center Special Orders Number 88, dated 1 April 1967, which shows that the
applicant was reassigned to Fort Lewis, Washington, for training in MOS
11B.  He was later awarded the primary MOS (PMOS) of 11B effective 3 June
1967.

7.  The applicant's records contain a copy of Hqs, US Army Training Center
Infantry, Special Orders Number 140, dated 26 May 1967, which assigned the
applicant to the US Army Infantry OCS at Fort Benning, Georgia, with a
reporting date of 25 June 1967.

8.  He was promoted to pay grade E-3 on 8 August 1967.  He served in
Germany from 30 January 1968 to 2 January 1970.

9.  On 8 February 1968, the applicant's commander submitted a letter to the
Commanding General (CG) recommending that the applicant appear before a
board of officers under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for the
purpose of determining whether he should be discharged before his ETS.
He indicated that the applicant's performance of duty had been
unsatisfactory and that further rehabilitative efforts would be useless.

10.  On that same day, the applicant's commander initiated elimination
procedures on the applicant, under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-212, for unsuitability.   After consulting with counsel, the applicant
waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
He acknowledged that he understood that he may expect to encounter
substantial prejudice in civilian life in the event of a general discharge
(under honorable conditions) was issued to him.

11.  On 12 February 1968, the squadron surgeon prepared a medical officer's
statement in regards to the applicant.  He stated that the applicant had
been given a psychiatric evaluation and separation medical examination.
However, they were unavailable for review.  He also stated that the
applicant met the retention medical standards prescribed in Army Regulation
40-501, chapter 3.  He further stated that the applicant was mentally
responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the
right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board
proceedings.

12.  On 16 February 1968, the separation authority approved the
recommendation for the applicant's discharge and directed that he be
furnished a GD.  The applicant was discharged on 12 March 1968.  He had a
total of 1 year, 1 month, and 20 days of creditable service.

13.  The applicant’s medical records are unavailable for review by this
Board.

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

15.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  It stated, in
pertinent part, that individuals would be separated for unsuitability due
to aptitude, character and behavior disorders, apathy, alcoholism, or
enuresis and that the individual would be furnished an honorable or general
discharge.



16.  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.  The applicant’s discharge proceedings appear to have been conducted in
accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time of his
separation.

2.  The type of separation directed and the reasons for that separation
were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant has provided no evidence to show that his discharge was
unjust.  He also has not provided any evidence sufficient to mitigate the
character of his discharge.

4.  The evidence clearly shows that he initially enlisted in MOS 67N,
waived his enlistment options, and was later approved for acceptance in
OCS.  However, it was discovered that he was married which made him
ineligible to attend USMA.  He was reassigned for training in MOS 11B,
which he completed, and was later awarded the PMOS of 11B.  The evidence
also shows that he attained the rank of PFC and served in Germany.

5.  The applicant's contentions are noted: however, there is no evidence,
and the applicant has provided none, to show that he was told that he was
receiving an "honorable discharge."  His separation proceeding clearly
indicated that he understood that he may encounter substantial prejudice in
civilian life in the event a GD was issued.

6.  The applicant alleges that he was unaware that his discharge was "under
honorable conditions."  However, the Board noted that the applicant’s
record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 which was authenticated
by the applicant.  This document identifies the reason, authority, and
characterization of the discharge which clearly indicated "under honorable
conditions."

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 12 March 1968; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 11 March 1971.  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

_MJF___  _LCH____  _JS_____  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 Sloan______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050006528                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051214                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19680312                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-212                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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