RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            29 JUNE 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20050016250


      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             |
|     |Mr. Jessie B. Strickland          |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Linda Simmons                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Richard Sayre                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Chester Damian                |     |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 general discharge be
affirmed.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his records incorrectly reflect
that he received a dishonorable discharge; however, he did not receive a
dishonorable discharge.  He goes on to state that he had a drug and alcohol
problem, but he was also in combat in Vietnam and he now lives with Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  He goes on to state that he has been
unable to hold a job for very long, that he has been married six times and
that he cannot keep a relationship going.  He continues by stating that he
is being credited with having a dishonorable discharge, which is incorrect
and needs to be reviewed.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a letter from a Department of Veterans
Affairs counselor indicating that he is being treated for PTSD and a copy
of his report of separation (DD Form 214) that appears to have been
altered.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 25 October 1972.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 6 November 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 was born on 14 December 1945 and enlisted in Baltimore,
Maryland on 16 December 1966, for a period of 2 years.  He completed his
basic combat training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and his advanced
individual training (AIT) at Fort Lewis, Washington.

4.  Upon completion of his AIT he was transferred to Korea for duty as a
light weapons infantryman on 19 May 1967.  He was advanced to the pay grade
of   E-3 on 22 June 1967.

5.  On 27 November 1967, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against
him for sleeping on duty, while stationed on a search light position.  His
punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2 (suspended for
1 month), a forfeiture of pay and restriction for 14 days.

6.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 13 May 1968 and was
honorably discharged on 5 June 1968, for the purpose of immediate
reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 6 June 1968 for a period of 3 years and
departed Korea on 16 June 1968, for assignment to Fort Carson, Colorado.

7.  On 23 October 1968, NJP was imposed against him for being absent
without leave (AWOL) from 19 October to 22 October 1968.  His punishment
consisted of extra duty and restriction.

8.  The applicant also went AWOL from 9 December to 11 December 1968,
however, the record is silent as to any punishment imposed for that
offense.  He again went AWOL from 4 January to 23 February 1969 and again
there is no indication in the available records to show any punishment
imposed for that offense.

9.  He was transferred to Vietnam on 26 February 1969 and on 26 August
1969, NJP was imposed against him for being AWOL from 17 August to 22
August 1969.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-
3.

10.  On 2 September 1969, NJP was imposed against him for getting drunk in
order to avoid bunker guard duty and for breaking restriction on 31 August
1969. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2 and a
forfeiture of pay.

11.  He departed Vietnam on 16 September 1969 and was transferred back to
Fort Carson.  He again went AWOL on 19 September 1969 and remained absent
in a deserter status until 30 May 1970, when he was returned to military
control at Fort Riley, Kansas.

12.  He again went AWOL on 1 July 1970 and remained absent in a deserter
status until he was returned to military control at Fort Belvoir, Virginia,
on 5 April 1972, where he was placed in the post stockade pending charges.

13.  On 25 April 1972, he escaped from the post stockade and remained
absent in a deserter status until he was apprehended by civil authorities
in Annapolis, Maryland, on 5 September 1972, and was returned to military
control at Fort Meade, Maryland, where charges were preferred against him
for desertion during the periods of 19 September 1969 to 31 May 1970, 1
July 1970 to 5 April 1972, from 25 April to 5 September 1972 and for
escaping from confinement.

14.  After consulting with his defense counsel, the applicant submitted a
request for discharge for the good of the service, under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In
his request he indicated that he was making the request of his own free
will, without coercion from anyone and that he was aware of the
implications attached to his request.  He acknowledged that he understood
that he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and
that he might be deprived of all benefits as a result of such a discharge.
He also elected to submit a statement in his own behalf, which consisted of
a three page history from his counsel that indicates that the applicant had
been married three times while in the service, that he came from a deprived
background as a child, that he started drinking when he was 16 years of
age, that he realized that he had a drinking problem and suffered from
depression; however, he was unable to get help for his problems.  He also
stated that he desired to remain in the military if he could get
psychiatric help for his problems.

15.  The appropriate authority approved his request for discharge and
directed that he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate (DD Form
258A).  Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable
conditions on
25 October 1972.  He had served 1 year, 4 months and 22 days of service
during his current enlistment, for a total of 2 years, 10 months and 11
days of total active service and had 1093 days of lost time due to AWOL.
He was awarded the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, the National Defense
Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign
Medal, the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Army Commendation Medal, and the
Air Medal.

16.  On 20 April 1977, he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB)
for an upgrade of his discharge under the Department of Defense (DOD)
Discharge Review Program (SDRP).  On 26 May 1977, the ADRB voted to upgrade
his undesirable discharge under the SDRP to a general discharge (under
honorable conditions) based on his awards, prior honorable discharge, age,
general aptitude, education level, length of service, deprived background,
personal problems, his drug or alcohol abuse and contributing and
extenuating circumstances in a spirit of compassion.

17.  On 21 April 1978, the ADRB dispatched a letter to the applicant
informing him that a preliminary review of his discharge had been completed
by the ADRB as required by Public Law 95-126 and it was determined that he
would not qualify for upgrading under the new uniform standards for
discharge review.  He was further advised that he could request a personal
appearance before the ADRB to present additional evidence or testimony as
to why he believed that he should receive favorable consideration by that
board.

18.  The applicant requested and was granted a personal appearance before
the ADRB on 11 July 1978; however, he failed to appear for that hearing.

19.  On 1 September and 3 November 1978, notifications were dispatched to
the applicant from the ADRB informing him that the ADRB could not affirm
his discharge under the DOD-SDRP.

20.  On 1 December 1978, the Office of the Adjutant General dispatched a
letter to the applicant informing him that the ADRB had re-reviewed his
discharge as required by Public Law 95-126 and had determined that he did
not qualify for upgrading under the new uniform standards for discharge
review, that his upgraded discharge was not affirmed by that board, and
that his upgraded discharge would not qualify him for Veterans benefits.

21.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the 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 charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge
for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A condition
of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must indicate
that they are submitting the request of their own free will, without
coercion from anyone and that they have been briefed and understand the
consequences of such a request as well as the discharge they might receive.
 A discharge under other than honorable conditions was then and still is
normally considered appropriate.

22.  On 4 April 1977, the Department of Defense (DOD) directed the Services
to review all less than fully honorable administrative discharges issued
between
4 August 1964 and 28 March 1973.  This program, known as the DOD Discharge
Review Program (Special) (SDRP) required, in the absence of compelling
reasons to the contrary, that a discharge upgrade to either honorable or
general be issued in the case of any individual who had either completed a
normal tour of duty in Southeast Asia, been wounded in action, been awarded
a military decoration other than a service medal, had received an honorable
discharge from a previous period of service, or had a record of
satisfactory military service of 24 months prior to discharge.
Consideration of other factors, including possible personal problems which
may have contributed to the acts which led to the discharge, and a record
of good citizenship since the time of discharge, would also be considered
upon application by the individual.

23.  Public Law 95-126 was enacted in 1978.  This legislation required the
service Departments to establish historically consistent, uniform standards
for discharge reviews.  Reconsideration using these uniform standards was
required for all discharges previously upgraded under the SDRP and certain
other programs.  Individuals whose SDRP upgrades were not affirmed upon
review under these historically consistent uniform standards were not
entitled to VA benefits, unless they had been entitled to such benefits
before their SDRP review.

24.  Department of Defense Directive, 29 March 1978, announced uniform
standards for the review of discharges or dismissals to ensure historically
consistent uniformity as required by the provisions of Public Law 95-126.

25.  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.  The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing
that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute
allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion
requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens
that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on
the date of final action by the ADRB.  In complying with this decision, the
ABCMR has adopted the broader policy of calculating the 3-year time limit
from the date of exhaustion in any case where a lower level administrative
remedy is utilized.

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.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore
were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  The applicant's record of repeated unauthorized absences, combined with
an excessive amount of lost time and disciplinary record, does not warrant
affirming his discharge as upgraded under the SDRP.

4.  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.

5.  Records show the applicant exhausted his administrative remedies in
this case when his case was last reviewed by the ADRB on 1 December 1978.
As a result, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of
any error or injustice to this Board expired on 30 November 1981.  The
applicant did not file within the ABCMR's 3-year statute of limitations and
has not provided 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

___LS  __  ___RS __  ___CD __  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.




                                  _____Linda Simmons______
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050016250                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060629                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(GDUHC)                                 |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1972/10/25                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200/CH 10 . . . . .               |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Gd of svc                               |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES                  |954/a00.20 sdrp                         |
|1.144.0020              |                                        |
|2.144.7000              |689/a70.00                              |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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