RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        18 January 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050008069


      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. Beverly A. Young              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Shirley Powell                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Chester Damian                |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Karmin Jenkins                |     |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 correction of his records to show he served on
active duty from 10 September 1969 through 20 September 1971.

2.  The applicant states he does not know why his dates of service are
incorrect in his military record.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 29 September 1971.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 1 June 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.  Department of the Army, Armed Forces Examining and Entrance Station,
Special Orders Number 200 dated 20 September 1969 shows the applicant was
inducted into the Army on 20 September 1969.  His Record of Induction
(DD Form 47) shows he was inducted into the Army on 20 September 1969.  At
the time of his induction, he signed an Acknowledgement of Service
Obligation
(6-Year Acknowledgement) which shows his date of induction as 20 September
1969.

4.  The applicant completed basic combat training and advanced individual
training and was assigned to Fort Knox, Kentucky for training in military
occupational specialty 31B (Service School Field Radio Mechanic).

5.  On 29 September 1970, the applicant was convicted by a special court-
martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 13 February 1970 through
2 September 1970.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 120
days and to a forfeiture of $25.00 pay per month for 4 months (confinement
at hard labor in excess of 60 days was suspended until 28 March 1971).

6.  On 13 September 1971, charges were preferred against the applicant for
being AWOL from 2 November 1970 through 27 July 1971.

7.  On an unknown date, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and
voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.

8.  On 29 September 1971, the separation authority approved the discharge
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 with issuance
of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

9.  Headquarters, U.S. Army Personnel Center, Special Orders Number 272
dated 29 September 1971 discharged the applicant from active duty under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the
service with an effective date of discharge as 29 September 1971.

10.  The applicant's DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report
of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was inducted in the Army on 20 September
1969 and was discharged from active duty on 29 September 1971.

11.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) governs the preparation
of the DD Form 214.  It states that the DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the
Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty.  It provides a
brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from
active duty, retirement or discharge.  In the version in effect at the
time, it directed that the date of induction would be entered in item 10(c)
and the effective date of separation would be entered in item 11(d) of the
DD Form 214.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the applicant contends he served on active duty from 10
September 1969 through 20 September 1971, the preponderance of evidence
shows he was inducted into the Army on 20 September 1969 and was discharged
on 29 September 1971.

2.  The applicant's DD Form 214 was prepared to properly reflect the date
of his induction as 20 September 1969 and the effective date of his
separation as 29 September 1971.  Therefore, there is no basis for
correcting his records to show he served on active duty from 10 September
1969 through 20 September 1971.

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 29 September 1971; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 28 September 1974.  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

SP______  CD______  KJ______  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 Powell________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050008069                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060118                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |100.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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