RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        22 August 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060001593


      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. Beverly A. Young              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Linda Simmons                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Meixell                  |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Jerome Pionk                  |     |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 an
honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he feels his service in Vietnam caused him to
experience Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) which led to his
misconduct of being absent without leave (AWOL) for 31 days.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the
United States Report of Transfer or Discharge); a DD Form 293 (Application
for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the
United States); a supplemental letter; and three letters of support.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged which occurred
on 20 September 1973.  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 in the Regular Army on 18 February 1971 for a
period of three years.  He completed basic combat training at Fort Leonard
Wood, Missouri and was reassigned to Fort Eustis, Virginia for advanced
individual training (AIT).  At the completion of AIT, he was awarded
military occupational specialty 67C (Airplane Mechanic).  He was advanced
to private first class on 29 July 1971.  He was reassigned to Fort Ord,
California in August 1971 as a helicopter repairman.

4.  On 25 February 1972, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment
under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being AWOL from 10
February 1972 to 24 February 1972.  His punishment consisted of a
forfeiture of $75.00 pay per month for one month and a reduction to the
grade of private, E-2.

5.  He served in Vietnam from 6 March 1972 to 15 November 1972 as a
helicopter repairman.

6.  Item 42 (Remarks) on the applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification
Record) shows he was arrested on 12 March 1973 by civil authorities in
Seaside, California while on authorized pass.  He was charged with driving
while intoxicated and was sentenced to a fine of $360.00 or 36 days in
jail.  He was returned to duty on 15 April 1973.

7.  On 23 August 1973, charges were preferred against the applicant for
being AWOL from 2 July 1973 to 17 August 1973.

8.  On 27 August 1973, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and
voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so, he
admitted guilt to the offense charged and acknowledged that he might
encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that he might be
ineligible for many or all Army benefits administered by the Veterans
Affairs if an undesirable discharge was issued.  He submitted statements in
his own behalf.

9.  In support of his chapter 10 proceedings, the applicant stated, in
effect, that he enlisted in the service because he was confused.  He was
being charged with a felony and the judge told him that he could join the
Army and he would drop all the charges on record.  He stated he completed
basic training, completed advanced individual training, and was assigned to
Fort Ord, California for seven months.  He stated he received orders for
Vietnam, so he went AWOL.  He surrendered to authorities at Fort Sill,
Oklahoma.  He went to Vietnam and served his time.  He stated that he
wanted out of the service because he wanted to live as a civilian with his
wife and kids.  He also stated he went AWOL because his family could not
make it in the Army.  He stated that if he received a discharge, it would
help him get the job he wanted and his family would be happy.

10.  On an unknown date, the separation authority approved the discharge
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 with issuance
of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

11.  On 20 September 1973, the applicant was discharged from active duty
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of
the service with an undesirable discharge.  He had completed 2 years, 2
months, and 24 days of active military service.  His DD Form 214 shows
approximately 129 days of lost time.

12.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant applied to
the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

13.  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.

14.  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, or is
otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly
inappropriate.

15.  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.  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.

2.  The applicant's record of service shows he received one Article 15 for
being AWOL for 14 days even before he departed for Vietnam.  He was later
convicted by civil authorities for driving while intoxicated and was
confined for 34 days.  He was charged for being AWOL for a total of 45
days.  As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not
meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army
personnel for an upgrade to an honorable or general discharge.

3.  The applicant’s letters of support were reviewed; however, these
documents are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his
discharge.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 20 September 1973; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 19 September 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

LS______  JM______  JP______  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                 |AR20060001593                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060822                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19730920                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200, chapter 10                   |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |For the good of the service             |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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