RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:



      BOARD DATE:        19 July 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050013169


      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. Judy L. Blanchard             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Vick                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Barbara J. Ellis              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Donald L. Lewy                |     |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 be upgraded to an honorable
discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he completed 4 years of military
service and was honorably discharged.  The applicant further states that
when he reenlisted, he was having family problems, he was young, and made
stupid mistakes.

3.  The applicant provides no additional information.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 4 April 1984, the date he was separated from active duty
service.  The application submitted in this case is dated 15 September
2005, although the case was actually received for processing on 8 September
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 that he enlisted in the Regular Army on
6 March 1979.  He completed the required training and was awarded military
occupational specialty 63B1P (Light Wheel Vehicle/Power Generation
Mechanic).  The highest grade he attained was sergeant pay grade E-5.

4.  On 4 August 1982, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
for dereliction in the performance of duty by willfully leaving his
appointed place of duty (Charge of Quarters).  His imposed punishment was a
reduction to pay grade E-3 (suspended for 6 months), a forfeiture of
$171.00 pay, and 14 days extra duty.

5.  On 21 February 1983, the applicant was honorably discharged after
serving
3 years, 11 months, and 16 days of active military service.  On 22 February
1983, the applicant reenlisted for a period of 3 years.
6.  On 30 November 1983, the applicant accepted NJP for being absent
without leave (AWOL) from 8 to 15 November 1983.  His imposed punishment
was a reduction to pay grade E-3, a forfeiture of $381.00 pay per month for
2 months, and to perform 30 days extra duty.

7.  On 2 December 1983, the applicant was reported for being AWOL.  He was
returned to military control on 21 February 1984.

8.  On 22 February 1984, court-martial charges were preferred against the
applicant for being AWOL from 2 December 1983 to 21 February 1984.

9.  On 23 February 1984, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was
advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, the effects of
a discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) and of the rights
available to him.  The applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the
good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request for
discharge, he acknowledged that he was guilty of the charge against him or
of a lesser-included offense therein contained which also authorizes the
imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He also
acknowledged that if his discharge request was approved, he could be
deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many
or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA),
and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under
both Federal and State law.  He further indicated that he understood that
he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of a
UOTHC.

10.  On 26 March 1984, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
request for discharge and directed that he be reduced to the grade of E-1
and issued an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.
On 4 April 1984, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The separation
document (DD Form 214) he was issued confirms he completed a total of 4
years, 10 months, and
3 days of creditable active military service and accrued 78 days of time
lost due to AWOL.

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




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

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his discharge should be upgrade because he
was young and made mistakes were carefully considered and found to be
insufficient in merit in supporting his request.  The applicant’s record
shows that he was
23 years of age at the time of the offense.  There is no evidence that
indicates that he was any less mature than any other Soldier of the same
age who successfully completed military service.  Therefore, given the
circumstances in this case and his overall record of service, there is
insufficient evidence to support his claim.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was charged with the
commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive
discharge. After consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily
requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All
requirements of law and regulation were met, the rights of the applicant
were fully protected throughout the separation process and his discharge
accurately reflects his overall record of service.

3.  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.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 4 April 1984; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
3 April 1987.  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

_JEV____  ___BJE__  __DLL__  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.




                                              James E. Vick____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR                                      |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/07/19                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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