RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        10 January 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050007839


      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. Kenneth L. Wright             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Dale E. DeBruler              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Qawly A. Sabree               |     |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,
characterized as under other than honorable conditions, be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states that while he was serving his country in Vietnam
his wife divorced him.  The applicant continues that he was emotionally
distraught and did not know what to do.

3.  The applicant provided a copy of his divorce decree in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 3 July 1972, the date of his discharge.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 10 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 8
November 1962.  He completed basic and advanced individual training.  He
was trained in, awarded, and served in military occupational specialty
(MOS) 63C20 (Track Vehicle Mechanic) and the highest rank he attained while
serving on active duty was staff sergeant/pay grade E-6.

4.  Records show the applicant served in the Republic of Vietnam during the
period 18 January 1969 through 24 August 1970 and while he was stationed in
Vietnam he participated in four campaigns.

5.  The applicant’s records show he earned several awards and decorations
including the Bronze Star Medal and the Good Conduct Medal.

6.  The applicant's records contain a DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification
Record) which shows he was absent without leave (AWOL) during the periods
18 April 1971 through 23 August 1971 and 4 November 1971 through 7 June
1972.

7.  The applicant's records do not contain the complete separation
processing paperwork.  However, his records contain a statement written in
the applicant's own hand wherein he inidicated he should be discharged for
the good of the service because he could no longer perform his duties
because his wife divorced him and took his home, car and daughter while he
was on his second tour in Vietnam.

8.  On 27 June 1972, the separation approval authority approved the
applicant's request for separation under the provisions of chapter 10 of
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) and directed that he be
furnished an undesirable discharge.

9.  On 3 July 1972, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form
214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) he
was issued confirms he completed a total of 8 years, 8 months, and 17 days
of creditable active military service and that he accrued 345 days of time
lost due to AWOL.  The applicant authenticated this DD Form 214 in his own
hand.

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.  The applicant submitted a copy of his divorce decree which shows that
his divorce was granted on 15 June 1971.

12.  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 trail by court-martial.  A
discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered
appropriate.





13.  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.

14.  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 his under other than honorable conditions
discharge should be upgraded because he was unable to handle the stress
caused by his divorce.

2.  The applicant's record of service shows that he had 345 days of lost
time due to AWOL.  The applicant's records further show that he voluntarily
requested discharge from the service because he no longer wanted to perform
his duties.

3.  Although the applicant served in four campaigns in Vietnam and earned
several awards including the Bronze Star Medal and the Good Conduct Medal,
his record of indiscipline clearly shows his service 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 a general discharge or an honorable discharge.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 3 July 1972; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 2 July 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

_KLW__ _  _QAS___  _DED___  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.




                                      _Kenneth L. Wright___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050007839                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/01/10                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |                                        |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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