RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        19 September 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050017293


      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. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Maribeth Love                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Thomas M. Ray                 |     |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 discharge be upgraded to an
honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was told that his discharge
would be upgraded in 6 months.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or
injustice, which occurred on 12 May 1975, the date he was separated from
active duty.  The application submitted in this case is dated 7 December
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 reenlisted in the Regular Army on 11
July 1974, after servicing 2 years of active honorable service.  His
military occupational specialty was 11C10 (Infantryman Indirect Fire
Crewman).  The highest grade attained was pay grade E-3.

4.  On 19 August 1974, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
for two incidents of failure to go at the prescribed time to his appointed
place of duty.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $50.00 pay
(suspended for
6 months) and 7 days restriction.

5.  On 13 September 1974, the applicant accepted NJP for two incidents of
failure to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty.  His
imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2, 14 days restriction
and 14 days extra duty.

6.  On 6 December 1974, the applicant accepted NJP for two incidents of
failure to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty.  His
imposed punishment was 15 days extra duty.

7.  On 6 March 1975, the applicant accepted NJP for two incidents of
failure to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty.  His
imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1, 14 days restriction
and 14 days extra duty.

8.  On 23 March 1975, the applicant was reported for being absent without
leave. He was returned to military control on 5 May 1975.

9.  The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge
proceedings are not in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
However, the OPMF does contain a separation document (DD Form 214) that
contains the authority and reason for his discharge.  The applicant
authenticated this document with his signature indicating he was discharged
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, the character
of service was Under r Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) and that the
reason for discharge was for the good of the service.

10.  On 12 May 1975, the applicant was discharged under the provision of
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with an
Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He had completed 8 months, and 19 days
of active military service during this enlistment.

11.  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.
An undesirable discharge is normally considered appropriate.

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

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The contentions of the applicant were carefully considered and found to
have insufficient merit in this case.

2.  The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances
surrounding his separation processing.  However, it does contain a properly
constituted DD Form 214 that identifies the reason and characterization of
the applicant’s discharge.  The applicant authenticated this document with
his signature on the date of his separation.  Therefore, Government
regularity in the discharge process is presumed.

3.  The applicant’s contentions that he was told that he would receive an
upgrade within 6 months of his separation were carefully considered.
However, as explained during the separation process the Army does not have,
nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each
case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits an application
to the ADRB or this Board requesting a change in discharge.  Changes may be
warranted if either Board determines that the characterization of service
or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.

4.  In the absence of any evidence of record or independent evidence to the
contrary, it is concluded that all requirements of law and regulation were
met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the
separation process. Further, the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects
his overall record of service.

5.  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.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 12 May 1975, therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
11 May 1978.  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

___JEA__  __ML ___  __TMR__  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. Anderholm___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR                                      |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/09/19                              |
|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]