RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        3 August 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060001269


      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:

|     |Ms. Margaret Patterson            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Michael Flynn                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Gerald Purcell                |     |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 discharge under other than honorable
conditions be upgraded to a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he has matured since his military discharge,
that he has worked steadily, and that he went absent without leave (AWOL)
due to family sickness.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 13 February 1979.  The application submitted in this case is
dated                  7 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 on 22 February 1978 for a period of 3 years.  He
successfully completed basic combat training.

4.  While in advanced individual training, the applicant went AWOL on 2 May
1978, was apprehended by civil authorities, and returned to military
control on
18 January 1979.  On 23 January 1979, charges were preferred against the
applicant for the AWOL period.

5.  On 24 January 1979, during an interview, the applicant stated he went
AWOL because of his dislike for the Army and that he could not cope with
the demands of the military.

6.  On 24 January 1979, the applicant consulted with counsel and requested
discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He indicated in his request that he
understood he might be discharged under conditions other than honorable and
furnished an other than honorable discharge; that he might be ineligible
for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration; that
he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits; and that he might be
ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and
State law.  He also acknowledged that he might expect to encounter
substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an other than honorable
discharge.  He elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.

7.  On 2 February 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant's
request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under
other than honorable conditions.

8.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable
conditions on 13 February 1979 under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of court-martial.
 He had served 3 months and 6 days of total active service with 256 days of
lost time due to AWOL.

9.  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.

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,
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 under
other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

11.  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.  Since the applicant’s brief record of service included 256 days of lost
time, his record of service was not satisfactory.  Therefore, the
applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant a
general discharge.

2.  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.  He had an opportunity to submit a
statement in which he could have voiced his reasons for going AWOL and he
failed to do so.  It is noted that during an interview in 1979 the
applicant stated his reason for going AWOL was due to his dislike for the
Army.  However, he now contends that he went AWOL due to family sickness.


3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 13 February 1979; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 12
February 1982.  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

MP_____  __MF____  _GP____  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.




                                  ___Margaret Patterson____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060001269                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060803                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19790213                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 Chapter 10                   |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |For the good of the service, in lieu of |
|                        |court-martial                           |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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