RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        10 August 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060001080


      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. Wanda L. Waller               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Curtis Greenway               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. James Gunlicks                |     |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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to
honorable.

2.  The applicant states the reason for his discharge was a death in the
family.  He contends that his father’s death was hard to deal with at the
time, that he was the oldest child, and that his mother needed him to come
home.  He states that he is disabled and needs some assistance from the
Department of the Veterans Affairs (DVA).

3.  The applicant provides three character reference letters.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 13 May 1976.  The application submitted in this case is dated
13 January 2006.

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 on 13 May 1975 for a period of 4 years.  He
successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual
training in military occupational specialty 16P (chaparral crewman).

4.  The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 5 November 1975 and
returned to military control on 12 January 1976 (68 days).  He went AWOL
again on 23 January 1976 and returned to military control on 30 March 1976
(67 days).

5.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are
not contained in the available records.  However, the applicant’s DD Form
214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows that he was discharged
with an undesirable discharge on 13 May 1976 under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served
a total of
9 months and 24 days of creditable active service.  His DD Form 214 only
shows he had 67 days of lost time due to AWOL.
6.  The applicant provided three character reference letters from two
friends and his pastor.  One friend stated that the applicant left the Army
to support his family when his father died, that he is a hard worker, and
that he is dependable.  His pastor attests that the applicant attends
church on a regular basis, that he is dependable, and that he is a person
that keeps his word.  Another friend attests that the applicant is a good
person and is dependable.

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

8.  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.  At the time, an undesirable
discharge was normally considered appropriate.

9.  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 (emphasis
added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization
would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be
resolved in favor of the individual.

10.  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.  Personal/family problems are not grounds for upgrading a discharge.
There is no evidence the applicant sought assistance from his chain of
command or chaplain on a way to resolve his problems within established
Army procedures.

2.  A discharge is not upgraded for the purpose of obtaining DVA benefits.

3.  The character reference letters submitted on behalf of the applicant
fail to show that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.
4.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that
the applicant’s separation was administratively correct and in conformance
with applicable regulations.  Without having the discharge packet to
consider, it is presumed his characterization of service was commensurate
with his overall record of service.  As a result, there is no basis for
granting the applicant's request.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 13 May 1976; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 12
May 1979.  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

CG_____  _JG_____  __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.


                                  __Curtis Greenway_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060001080                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060810                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19760513                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 Chapter 10                   |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |For the good of the service             |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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