RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        29 August 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060001225


      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. G. E. Vandenberg              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Paul M. Smith                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Ronald D. Gant                |     |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 (UD) be upgraded
to honorable with full benefits and “colanatal damages.”

2.  The applicant states he was lied to about being able to relocate his
family at government expense to his first duty station and when he asked
for a hardship discharge he was threatened with prison.  He states that the
only “help” that he got was to be advised to go AWOL (absent without
leave).

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation
or Discharge From Active Duty) and a 5-page personal recounting of his
military history and problems as follows:

      a.  His personal statement reports two trains of thought or actions
which he relates to his period of service and his problems.  The first
relates to his actions relating to relocation problems of his family.  He
states that his recruiter lied to him about being able to have the
government relocate his family with him at his first duty station.  When he
learned that he could not get the military to cover the cost of having his
family relocated to Germany, he requested assistance from his chain of
command and the chaplain, only to be told there was nothing that could be
done for him.  The only help anyone offered was to tell him to go AWOL.
When he asked his company commander for a hardship discharge he was
threatened with being sent to Angola prison in Germany if he didn’t let it
go.  He indicates he wrote his State Senator and asked him to look into the
issue.  Later, while on leave, he received a letter that indicated a Senate
hearing had been held and that he was to receive an honorable discharge
with full benefits as soon as he returned to Germany.  When turned himself
in at Fort Polk, Louisiana and presented the letter to a “Spec 7” he was
told that he would have to return to Germany because he had not been AWOL
for more than 30 days.  The “Spec 7” told him that he couldn’t tell him
where to go but that he would see him back in 27 or 28 days.  He again went
AWOL and returned to the same Spec 7 who added up his AWOL days and signed
him out of the Army.  He states that all of his copies of the paperwork was
stolen in 1986.

      b.  His second theme reports attempts to recruit and train him in
covert operations because he was such an excellent shot.  He states that
because of his marksmanship skills with a rifle during basic training he
was approached to become a covert operations sharpshooter.  An expert was
sent to evaluate his skill.  He matched every shot that an expert made
until he was told that the shooter was a hit man for the United States.  He
deliberately failed to match the last three shots in order to avoid being
further considered for this type of duty.  He indicates that the
recruitment efforts and secret training did not end there.  When he arrived
in Germany he was placed in training with 10 other men, who names he never
knew, and was the martial arts instructor for a class that “no one knew
about except those attending it.”  He was issued a sidearm and ordered to
carry it at all times in and out of uniform.  When he asked why, he was
told that the government requires anyone with his marksmanship skills to
carry a weapon.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 29 November 1977, the date of his discharge.  The
application submitted in this case is dated 03 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 entered active duty on 5 August 1976, completed training,
and was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) 16J (Defense
Acquisition Radar Crewman).

4.  Upon completion of training the applicant was assigned to duty in
Germany with a reporting date of 3 January 1977.

5.  The applicant was AWOL (absent without leave) during the periods 6 July
1977 through 28 July 1977 and 30 July 1977 through 30 October 1977.  Court-
martial charges were preferred for these two periods of AWOL.

6.  On 4 November 1977, after consulting with counsel and being advised of
his rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request, under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for discharge for the
good of the service (in lieu of trial by court-martial for an offense
punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge).  He acknowledged
that if the request was accepted that he could receive a discharge under
other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge
Certificate.  He acknowledged that
such a discharge would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a
veteran, and that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in
civilian life if he received a UD.

7.  Also on 4 November 1977 he requested that he be placed on excess leave
status pending the completion of actions related to his request for
separation.  This request was approved and the applicant was on excess
leave for the period 4 November 1977 through the date of his discharge.

8.  The discharge authority approved the request for separation and
directed the applicant be discharged not later than 29 November 1977 and
that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.

9.  On 29 November 1977 the applicant was separated under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He had served 11 months and 1 day of
creditable service with 142 days of lost time.

10.  The DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) indicates the
applicant qualified as a marksman with the M-16 rifle in September 1976.

11.  There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

12.  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.  However, at the time of the applicant's separation the
regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

13.  The Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments, sets
forth the maximum punishments for offenses chargeable under the UCMJ.  A
punitive discharge is authorized for offenses under Article 86, for periods
of AWOL in excess of 30 days.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the applicant’s story is not creditable, it is also not
relevant.  There is no discernable or reported connection between the
alleged special operations assignments and the AWOL that led to the
discharge.
2.  There is no available evidence that he ever sought a hardship discharge
or was guaranteed that his family would be moved at government expense.

3.  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.

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 should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 29 November 1977; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 28 November 1980.  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

__RDG__  __PMS___  __LMD__  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.



                                  ___     Paul M. Smith_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060001225                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060829                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19771129                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200. . . . .                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |



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