RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        25 July 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050018298


      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:

|     |Mr. Allen Raub                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. LaVerne Douglas               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Peguine Taylor                |     |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 under other than honorable conditions
(UOTHC) discharge be changed to a general or honorable discharge.  He also
requests that his narrative reason for discharge be changed.

2.  The applicant states he entered the Army at the age of 17 and was
raised in a family of several individuals that were proud to have served in
the military.  He states that, despite his limited English speaking skills,
he passed basic training and was assigned to Company B, 1st Battalion, 16th
Infantry in Boeblingen, Germany on 12 April 1980.  He states he performed
his duties well in Germany except for the Article 15 he received for
falling asleep on guard duty which reduced him one grade.  After three
months, he regained his grade of E-2 and was promoted to E-3.  He states he
performed his duties satisfactorily until the death of his grandmother on 5
June 1981.  By the time he arrived, she had been buried.  He had difficulty
coping with her death and his judgment was impaired.  When the authorized
time [emergency leave] expired, he did not know what steps were needed to
get back to Germany.  He reported to Roosevelt Military Base in Puerto Rico
to return to duty.  He states he was transported to Patrick Air Force Base
in Cocoa Beach, Florida to await a military flight back to Germany.  He
turned himself in to the reception station.  He states there was no flight
arranged by 31 August 1981, so he turned himself in to the military police.
 He was told he was declared as being absent without leave (AWOL).  He
states he was in the Orange County Jail for three days.  He was then taken
to Fort Bragg, North Carolina on 7 September 1981 where he remained until
his discharge.  He decided to get out and return to his home.  He states
that his difficulty was not with the Army, but with the circumstances of
his grandmother’s death.  Even though his records show he was AWOL for 66
days, he spent most of the time in military custody.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty); a photo of a gravestone; his
Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination); two DA Forms 2823 (Sworn
Statement); a DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form) revoking his security
clearance; a Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ); his chapter 10 discharge proceedings; his
enlistment contract; his separation orders; and his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel
Qualification Record - Part II).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 13 November 1981.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 28 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 October 1979 at 17
years old.  He successfully completed one station unit training at Fort
Benning, Georgia and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B
(Infantryman).  He was assigned to Company C, 1st Battalion, 16th Infantry
in Germany in April 1980.  The applicant was advanced to private E-2 on 17
April 1980.  He was later reassigned to Company B of 1st Battalion, 16th
Infantry in Germany.

4.  On 25 August 1980, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under
Article 15, UCMJ for being derelict in the performance of his duties in
that he negligently left his weapon unsecured; for leaving his appointed
place of duty; and for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  His
punishment consisted of 14 days extra duty, 14 days restriction, and a
reduction to private E-1.

5.  On 28 August 1980, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under
Article 15, UCMJ for being found asleep on duty.  His punishment consisted
of a forfeiture of $95.00 for one month.

6.  The applicant was advanced to private first class on 1 November 1980.

7.  On 8 December 1980, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under
Article 15, UCMJ for disobeying a lawful order from his superior
noncommissioned officer (NCO) and being disrespectful in language toward
his superior NCO.  His punishment consisted of 14 days extra duty, 14 days
restriction, a forfeiture of $50.00 pay for one month, and reduction to
private E-2 (suspended until 8 June 1981).  The suspension of the
punishment of reduction to private E-2 was vacated on 12 January 1981.

8.  The applicant’s unit commander recommended a bar to reenlistment be
imposed against him on 14 February 1981 based on his three Article 15s.  In
addition, the unit commander stated the applicant had continuously
displayed an indifferent, disinterested attitude.  The unit commander
stated the applicant had been disrespectful to noncommissioned officers on
numerous occasions and found it difficult to obey orders.  The unit
commander also stated the applicant demonstrated no promotion potential.
The bar to reenlistment was approved on 27 April 1981.

9.  The applicant departed AWOL on 2 June 1981 (repeat, 2 June 1981).

10.  Department of the Army, 198th Personnel Service Company Orders 158-401
dated 8 June 1981 authorized the applicant emergency leave effective 8 June
1981 for a period of 25 days.  The orders indicated the reason for the
applicant’s emergency leave as the death of his grandmother.  The
additional instructions informed the applicant of the person to contact if
he needed assistance with personal problems or needed an emergency leave
extension.  He was also given a point of contact at Scott Air Force Base
for obtaining a return portcall.

11.  The applicant was dropped from the unit rolls on 2 July 1981.  He was
apprehended by military authorities at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida on
26 August 1981.  On 1 September 1981, he was transported to Orlando,
Florida and was further transported to Fort Bragg, North Carolina on
3 September 1981.

12.  On 9 September 1981, charges were preferred against the applicant for
being AWOL from 2 June 1981 to 26 August 1981.

13.  On 9 September 1981, 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.  In doing so, he
admitted guilt to the offense charged and acknowledged that he might
encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that he might be
ineligible for many or all Army benefits administered by the Veterans
Affairs (VA) if a discharge UOTHC was issued.

14.  During an interview with his unit commander on 11 September 1981, the
applicant stated he was aware of the nature of the interview and the
consequences of a UOTHC discharge.  The applicant stated he desired
elimination from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-
200, chapter 10.  He stated that his 85 days of AWOL were caused by his
difficulty in adjusting to military life.  He stated that while assigned to
an infantry unit in Europe he encountered severe problems with his platoon
sergeant.  He alleged that he was constantly harassed, placed on the worst
details, and reprimanded constantly.  He stated that while on emergency
leave in Puerto Rico, due to the death of his grandmother, he decided that
he had enough of military life and departed AWOL.  He stated that at no
time did he seek advice or assistance for his problems through the
Inspector General (IG) in Europe as he felt that AWOL was the only answer.
He indicated he would go AWOL again if not granted a discharge.  The unit
commander stated that, in view of the applicant’s attitude toward the
military, and his lack of rehabilitative potential, he recommended the
applicant be discharged under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 with
issuance of an UOTHC discharge.

15.  On 28 October 1981, the separation authority approved the discharge
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 with issuance
of a discharge UOTHC.

16.  The applicant was discharged on 13 November 1981 under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service with an
UOTHC discharge.  He had completed 1 year, 10 months, and 3 days of active
military service.  He had 85 days of lost time due to AWOL.

17.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant applied to
the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) within its 15-year statute of
limitations.

18.  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
submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial
by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges
have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.
Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC
is normally considered appropriate.

19.  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, or is
otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly
inappropriate.

20.  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's voluntary request for separation under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to
avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in
conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the
request was made under coercion or duress.

2.  The applicant's record of service shows he received three Article 15s,
a bar to reenlistment, and was charged with being AWOL for 85 days.  As a
result, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the
standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel
for either a fully honorable or a general discharge.

3.  The applicant’s statements have been carefully reviewed.  However, the
evidence of record shows that during an interview with his unit commander,
he admitted that his 85 days of AWOL were caused by his difficulty in
adjusting to military life.  He also stated he encountered severe problems
with his platoon sergeant in Europe and was constantly harassed, placed on
the worst details, and reprimanded.  He further admitted that while he was
on emergency leave due to the death of his grandmother, he decided to go
AWOL because he had enough of military life.

4.  Since there is no evidence of record which indicates the actions taken
in his case were in error or unjust, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request to change his discharge or to change of his narrative
reason for discharge.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 13 November 1981; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 12 November 1984.  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

AR______  LD______  PT______  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.




                                  Allen Raub____________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050018298                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060725                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19811113                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200, chapter 10 . . . . .         |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |For the good of the service             |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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