RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        28 September 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060001826


      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. Judy L. Blanchard             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Paul M. Smith                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Alice Muellerweiss            |     |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, in effect, an upgrade of his discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was given two options to stay
in the Army and do bad time or take the discharge.  He further states, in
effect, that he did not listen and did not know how much this type of
discharge would affect him later in his life.  The last 40 years he has
worked hard and raised a family.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 28 June 1966.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
6 February 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.  On 11 March 1963, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a
period of 3 years.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational
specialty (MOS) 63C10 (Truck Vehicle Mechanic).  The highest rank that he
attained was pay grade E-3.

4.  On 6 July 1964, the applicant was convicted by a Summary Court-Martial
(SCM) of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 22 to 25 June 1964.  He was
sentenced to a forfeiture of $50 pay and a reduction to pay grade E-1.

5.  On 2 October 1964, the applicant was convicted by a Special Court-
Martial (SPCM) of being AWOL from 7 to 16 September 1964.  He was sentenced
to confinement at hard labor for 6 months (suspended for 6 months) and a
forfeiture of $55 pay per month for 6 months.

6.  On 22 December 1964, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) for failure to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of
duty.  His imposed punishment was 14 days extra duty.

7.  On 8 December 1965, the applicant accepted NJP for wearing an unclean
uniform for military training.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to
pay grade E-1.

8.  On 22 April 1966, the applicant was convicted by a SPCM of two
specifications of breaking restriction.  He was sentenced to confinement at
hard labor for 30 days and a forfeiture of $80.00 pay.

9.  On 14 and 25 March 1966, the applicant accepted two NJP’s for three
incidents of failure to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of
duty.  His punishment included forfeitures, restrictions and extra duties.

10.  On 28 March 1966, the applicant’s unit commander submitted a
recommendation that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-208, by reason of unfitness, because of the applicant’s
habitual minor infractions of rules and regulations and anti-social acts.
The unit commander further states that rehabilitative efforts were
attempted numerous times; none of the efforts had any effect in attempting
to rehabilitate the applicant.

11.  On 4 April 1966, the applicant acknowledged receipt of correspondence
that advised him of the basis for the contemplated separation action and of
his right to be represented by counsel at a hearing.  He waived his right
to have his case considered by a board of officers.

12.  On 3 June 1966, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
discharge and directed that the applicant be furnished an Undesirable
Discharge Certificate.  On 28 June 1966, the applicant was discharged
accordingly.  The separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued confirms
he completed
2 years, 10 months and 24 days of creditable active military service with
144 days of time lost.

13.  Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  It provided for the
separation of members for unfitness based on frequent incidents of
discreditable service.  An UD was normally considered appropriate.



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of his UD was carefully
considered.  However, there were no mitigating factors presented that
warrant an upgrade of his discharge at this time.

2.  The evidence of record reveals that the applicant had an extensive
disciplinary history of military infractions that ultimately led to his
discharge.  Therefore, given the circumstances in this case, there is
insufficient evidence to grant his request.

3.  The evidence of record further confirms the applicant’s separation
processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.
All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the
applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further,
the applicant’s UD accurately reflects his overall record of
undistinguished service.

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 28 June 1966; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
27 June 1969.  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

__LDS___  __PMS__  ___AM __  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 D. Simmons____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR                                      |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/09/28                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chen                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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