RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:      29 August 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060001775


      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. Jessie B. Strickland          |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Paul M. Smith                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. LaVerne 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 be upgraded to
honorable and that he be granted a pension for his service.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was unjustly discharged
without being able to tell his side of the story.  He goes on to state that
he was charged with having carnal knowledge with a 15-year old girl while
he was 23 years of age and that because he did not receive the necessary
treatment he needed for his schizophrenia condition at the time, he had
trouble adjusting after his tour in Vietnam.  He further states that had he
received the treatment he needed, the outcome would have been much
different.  He also states that he was exposed to Agent Orange and now
suffers from heart, liver, and kidney disease and he is also a diabetic.
He also states that he served his country well and deserved better
treatment than he received.

3.  The applicant provides a letter explaining his position, a letter
denying him VA benefits, three unofficial third party character references,
and a copy of his report of separation (DD Form 214).

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests, in effect, that the Board consider the applicant’s
request based on the available evidence of record.

2.  Counsel states, in effect, that the applicant’s application amply
advances his position.

3.  Counsel provides no additional documents.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 16 July 1969.  The application submitted in this case is dated
14 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 was born on 23 December 1945 and enlisted on 21 February
1967 for a period of 3 years and training under the airborne enlistment
option.

4.  He was transferred to Fort Benning, Georgia to undergo his basic combat
training (BCT) and on 4 April 1967, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was
imposed against him for assaulting another Soldier with his fists.  His
punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty, and restriction.
He completed his BCT and was transferred to Fort Gordon, Georgia to undergo
his advanced individual training (AIT) as an infantryman.  Upon completion
of his AIT he was transferred back to Fort Benning to attend airborne
training.  He was permanently disqualified from airborne training on
14 July 1967.

5.  He was transferred to Vietnam on 2 September 1967 and was assigned to
the 28th Infantry Regiment for duty as a rifleman.  He was advanced to the
pay grade of E-3 on 6 September 1967.

6.  On 16 March 1968, NJP was imposed against him for being absent without
leave (AWOL) from 10 March to 15 March 1968.  His punishment consisted of a
reduction to the pay grade of E-2 and a forfeiture of pay.

7.  On 23 April 1968, NJP was imposed against him for disobeying a lawful
order from a superior commissioned officer (his commander).  His punishment
consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay,
extra duty, and restriction.

8.  On 16 May 1968, he was convicted by a special court-martial for failure
to go to his place of duty and for being AWOL from 29 April to 15 May 1968.
 He pled guilty and was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months
and a forfeiture of pay.

9.  On 20 June 1968, the unexecuted portion of his sentence as pertained to
confinement at hard labor was suspended unless sooner vacated.  On 18 July
1968, the convening authority vacated the suspended portion of his sentence
and directed that the sentence be served.

10.  The applicant departed Vietnam on or about 13 August 1968 and was
transferred to Fort Carson, Colorado, for assignment to the 61st Infantry
Regiment.
11.  On 26 November 1968, he was convicted, pursuant to his plea, by a
summary court-martial for being disrespectful in language and deportment
towards a superior noncommissioned officer and for pushing him against a
wall.  He was sentenced to be reduced to the pay grade of E-1, hard labor
without confinement for 30 days, a forfeiture of pay, and restriction.

12.  He went AWOL on 3 January 1969 and remained absent until he was
returned to military control at Fort Campbell, Kentucky on 11 February
1969.  Court-martial charges were preferred against him for this AWOL
offense.  On
5 May 1969, he was convicted, pursuant to his pleas, of being AWOL from
3 January to 11 February 1969.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard
labor for 3 months and a forfeiture of pay.  However, the convening
authority suspended the execution of that portion of the sentence adjudging
hard labor for 3 months for a period of 6 months, unless sooner vacated.

13.  On 21 May 1969, a Criminal Investigation Division (CID) report was
prepared regarding a complaint made by a dependent wife of another Soldier
that her
15- year old daughter had been in the company of an unidentified male in a
set of quarters at Fort Campbell.  The investigation revealed that the
applicant, who was married at the time, had performed an act of sexual
intercourse with the child.  The applicant, after being advised of his
rights, admitted to the act in a sworn statement and admitted that he was
aware she was under 17 years of age.

18.  On 5 June 1969, court-martial charges were preferred against the
applicant for committing an act of carnal knowledge with a female under the
age of
16 years.  Additional charges were also preferred against him for being
disrespectful in language towards a superior noncommissioned officer, for
gambling in the barracks, for failure to sign in with the charge of
quarters every hour, for violating a lawful regulation (drinking in parking
lot), and for breaking restriction.

19.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are
not present in the available records.  However, his records do contain a
duly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214), signed by the
applicant, which shows that he was discharged at Fort Campbell on 16 July
1969, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu
of trial by             court-martial.  He had served 1 year, 6 months, and
23 days of active service during his current enlistment and 4 years, 10
months, and 12 days of total active service, and 194 days of lost time due
to AWOL and confinement.


20.  On 17 June 1974 and 12 August 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board
denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.

21.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the 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 charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge
for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A condition
of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must indicate
that they have been briefed and understand the consequences of such a
request as well as the discharge they might receive. A discharge under
other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

22.  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.  The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing
that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute
allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion
requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens
that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on
the date of final action by the ADRB.  In complying with this decision, the
ABCMR has adopted the broader policy of calculating the 3-year time limit
from the date of exhaustion in any case where a lower level administrative
remedy is utilized.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that
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.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore
were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  After being afforded the opportunity to assert his innocence before a
trial by court-martial, he voluntarily requested a discharge for the good
of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a
felony conviction on his records.

4.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence of record or
evidence submitted with his application, sufficient mitigating
circumstances to warrant an upgrade of his discharge when compared to his
overall record of misconduct during his service.

5.  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.

6.  Records show the applicant exhausted his administrative remedies in
this case when his case was last reviewed by the ADRB on 12 August 1977.
As a result, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of
any error or injustice to this Board expired on 11 August 1980.  However,
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                 |AR20060001775                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060829                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1969/07/16                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200/CH10 . . . . .                |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |GD OF SVC                               |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES                  |689/A70.00                              |
|1.144.7000              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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