RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        1 December 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050007196


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Victoria A. Donaldson        |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Maribeth Love                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Richard G. Sayre              |     |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, his undesirable discharge,
characterized as under other than honorable conditions, be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states he had mental, alcohol, and drug problems.

3.  The applicant states he provided copies from his Veteran's
Administration Hospital records.  However, these documents were not
attached to the application.  The application did contain a hand-written
letter from the applicant in support of this case.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 21 February 1966.  The application submitted in this case
is dated 5 May 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 on 11 June
1963 at the age of 17.  He completed basic and advanced individual
training.  He was trained in, awarded, and served in military occupational
specialty (MOS) 11B10 (Light Weapons Infantryman) and the highest rank he
attained while serving on active duty was private first class/pay grade E-
3.  The applicant was honorably discharged on 11 June 1965 for the purpose
of immediate reenlistment.

4.  The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement or service warranting special recognition.





5.  The applicant’s record reveals a disciplinary history which shows he
was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave
(AWOL) for the period 1 September 1965 through 6 September 1965 and
breaking restriction on 1 September 1965; and convicted by a special court-
martial of being AWOL during the period 29 December 1965 through 30
December 1965; resisting apprehension by a military police officer; and
being drunk and disorderly in a public place.

6.  The applicant's records also shows his acceptance of nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ) on the following five separate occasions for the
offenses indicated:  5 February 1965, for being absent from his unit
without proper authority on 2 February 1964; on 7 March 1964, for entering
an off limits establishment; on 1 April 1964, for being drunk when he
reported to his duty station; on 15 December 1965, for willfully and
unlawfully destroying a public record; and on 8 March 1965, for being AWOL
from his unit on 28 February 1965.

7.  On 15 December 1965, the unit commander advised the applicant that he
was recommending the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-208 (Personnel Separations), for frequent incidents of a
discreditable nature.

8.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel and after being advised of
the basis for the contemplated separation, its effects and the rights
available to him, he waived his right to consideration of his case by a
board of officers, personal appearance before a board of officers, and his
right to counsel.  The applicant also elected not to provide a statement on
his behalf.

9.  On 25 January 1966, the separation authority directed the applicant’s
separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for frequent
incidents of a discreditable nature and that he receive an Undesirable
Discharge Certificate.  On 21 February 1966, the applicant was discharged
accordingly.  The DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of
Transfer or Discharge) issued to him at the time, confirms the applicant
completed a total of 2 years, 5 months, and 18 days of creditable active
military service and that he accrued a total of 85 days of time lost due to
AWOL.

10.  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.



11.  There is no evidence in the available records which shows that the
applicant was diagnosed with or treated for alcoholism and/or drug
addiction or that he sought assistance from his chain of command for either
problem.

12.  There is also no evidence the applicant was diagnosed with or treated
for a mental condition or that he sought assistance from his chain of
command for assistance with a mental condition.

13.  The applicant submitted a self-authored statement which essentially
stated he was young and immature at the time of his military service.   He
continued that he only joined the military because a judge gave him the
option of joining the military or being placed in a juvenile detention
facility.

14.  Army Regulation 635-208 (Personnel Separation), in effect at the time,
set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who
were found unfit or unsuitable for further military service. The regulation
provided, in pertinent part, that members who displayed undesirable habits
and traits were subject to separation for unfitness.  An undesirable
discharge was normally considered appropriate.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative
Separations), 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.

16.  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.  The applicant contends that his discharge, characterized as under other
than honorable conditions, should be upgraded because he suffered from
mental, alcohol, and drug problems while he was in the military.

2.  There is no evidence, and the applicant has provided insufficient
evidence, that shows he suffered from or received treatment for alcohol
and/or drug dependency during his military service.  Furthermore, there is
no evidence that alcohol/drug dependency was the cause of his indiscipline
and subsequent separation.

3.  There is also insufficient evidence to show the applicant suffered from
a mental condition during his military service or that a mental condition
was the cause of his indiscipline.

4.  The applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded because he
was young and immature at the time of his service.

5.  Records show that the applicant was 19 years of age at the time of his
offenses.  However, there is no evidence that indicates that the applicant
was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully
completed military service.

6.  The applicant's separation processing was accomplished in accordance
with the applicable regulation in effect at the time, all requirements of
law and regulation were met, the rights of the applicant were fully
protected throughout the discharge process, and his discharge accurately
reflects his overall record of undistinguished service.

7.  The applicant’s record reveals an extensive disciplinary history that
included two court-martial convictions, five non judicial punishments, and
85 days of lost time due to AWOL.

8.  Based on this record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly
does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty
for Army personnel.  This misconduct also renders his service
unsatisfactory. Therefore, he is not entitled to either an honorable
discharge or a general discharge.

9.  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.




10.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 21 February 1966; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 20 February 1969.  However, 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

_RGS ____  _JM____  __ML___  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 T. Meixell__
                                            CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050007196                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051201                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1966/02/21                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR .635-208 . . . .                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Chap 14                                 |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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