RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        28 September 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060000055


      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:

|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Paul M. Smith                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Alice Muellerweiss            |     |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 he would like to have his
discharge upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he reenlisted for aviator
training and was sent to a motor pool job.  He had no skills in that field
and living quarters were totally non existent.

3.  The applicant provides six letters of support, and five certificates of
achievements in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 6 June1973, the date he was separated from active duty
service.  The application submitted in this case is dated 22 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 that he was inducted into the Army of the
United States on 23 February 1971 and was honorably discharged after
serving 7 days of active military service.  On 2 March 1971, the applicant
reenlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  He completed the
required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 67N10
(Helicopter Repairman).  The highest grade he attained was pay grade E-4.

4.  On 31 May 1972, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment for being
absent without leave (AWOL) from 26 to 30 May 1972.  His imposed punishment
was a reduction to pay grade E-3 (suspended for 30 days), and to perform
7 days extra duty.

5.  On 8 November 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the
applicant for two specifications of being AWOL from 8 June to 13 July 1972
and from 17 July to 6 August 1972.

6.  On 9 November 1972, a Report of Mental Status Evaluation and a Report
of Medical Examination found the applicant fit for retention or separation
from service.

7.  On 10 November 1972, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was
advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, the effects of
an Undesirable Discharge (UD) 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.  He also stated his understanding 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 UD.  The applicant
submitted a statement in his own behalf.  He stated in effect, that his
attitude toward the Army was poor.  He was a man of his own mind and he
does not like the Army and does not like the Army telling him every last
thing to do.  He states, that he has no rehabilitation potential and he
believes the discharge that he receives will not affect his future.  He is
willing to accept the discharge and believes that the Army is too hard in
many ways.

8.  On 5 December 1972, 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 Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

9.  On 6 June 1973, the applicant was discharged in absentia status.  The
applicant’s record does not reveal the reason for the delay in his
discharge process.  The separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued
confirms he completed 2 years, 1 month and 8 days of creditable active
military service and accrued 54 days of time lost due to AWOL.

10.  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.

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

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered and found to be
insufficient in merit.  There is no evidence in his military record nor has
the applicant submitted any evidence in support of his allegations.
Therefore, given the circumstances in this case and his overall
undistinguished record of service, there is insufficient evidence to
support his request at this time.

2.  The applicant’s good character and post service conduct is admirable;
however, this factor alone is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an
upgrade of his discharge.

3.  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 short and undistinguished
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 6 June 1973; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
5 June 1976.  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

__LDS___  __PMS__  ___AM__  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 D. Simmons_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR                                      |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/09/28                              |
|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. Chen                               |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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