RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:      19 September 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060001921


      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. Stephanie Thompkins           |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Anderson                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Maribeth Love                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Thomas Ray                    |     |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, that his undesirable discharge be
upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he wants an honorable discharge so
that he may be eligible to apply for a Small Business Loan and for the
purpose of improving his record.  His son may join the service and he does
not want his son to know that he was separated with a less than honorable
discharge.  He also states that he was having marital problems at the time
of his discharge.  While in Vietnam, his wife wrote a letter to him stating
that she was leaving him.  He was allowed to go home on emergency leave and
he did not return to his unit as scheduled because he went through a
divorce which was very stressful and time consuming it took 2-3 months.  He
further states that he contacted Fort Sheridan, Illinois, to discuss his
situation and they sent him to Fort Riley, Kansas, where he accepted a
discharge rather than continued military service and the stress of marital
problems.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the
United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 7 March 1972, the date of his discharge.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 19 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's military records show that he was inducted into the
Army of the United States for 2 years, as a private, pay grade E-1, on 18
March 1970.  He completed his basic and advanced training and was assigned
military occupational specialty 94B20, cook.  He was advanced to pay grade
E-2 on 19 May 1970.

4.  On 9 November 1970, he was punished under the provisions of Article 15,
Uniform Code of Military Justice, (UCMJ), for dereliction in the
performance of duties, in that he negligently failed to walk his post as it
was his duty to do so, on or about 6 November 1970.  His punishment
included reduction to pay grade E-2 (suspended for a period of one month
unless the suspension was sooner vacated), and a forfeiture of $25.00 pay
for 1 month.

5.  He was advanced to pay grade E-4 on 10 May 1971.

6.  On 28 May 1971, he was reported absent without leave (AWOL) and dropped
from the rolls on 30 June 1971.  He returned to military control on 6
January 1972.

7.  On 2 February 1972, he was charged with two specifications of being
AWOL from his unit from on or about 28 May 1971 to on or about 5 January
1972 and on or about 13 January 1972 to on or about 26 January 1972.

8.  On 4 February 1972, his commander recommended separation of the
applicant for the good of the service. The commander stated that the
applicant's record indicated that retention was neither practicable nor
desirable.  The commander recommended the applicant be issued an
undesirable discharge.  Although the applicant had no previous conviction,
the current charges indicated a prolonged absence.  His personal
observation of the applicant was that he would never be a satisfactory
Soldier.  Retention would serve no useful purpose.

9.  On the same day, after consulting with counsel the applicant
voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10.  In doing so, he
acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life
and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the
Veterans Administration if an undesirable discharge was issued.  He also
acknowledged that no one forced him to request a discharge.  He waived his
rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

10.  On 8 February 1972, the appropriate authority approved his discharge
for the good of the service and directed an Undesirable Discharge
Certificate be issued.

11.  He was separated on 7 March 1972, in pay grade E-1, under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the
service.  He was credited with 1 year, 3 months, and 28 days of total
active service and 232 days of lost time due to being AWOL.

12.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations for an upgrade of
his discharge.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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
Certificate.

14.  Chapter 3-7 of this regulation provides that an honorable discharge is
a separation with honor.  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
inappropriate.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 3-7, also 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, was
administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.

2.  Notwithstanding the applicant’s contentions that he was having marital
problems at the time of his discharge and that he accepted a discharge
rather than put up with the stress of continued military service and
marital problems, absent any evidence, those issues do nothing to
demonstrate that he was unjustly issued an undesirable discharge.  The
applicant has provided insufficient evidence to show that his discharge was
unjust.  Therefore, it is concluded that the requested relief is not
warranted in this case.
3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 7 March 1972, the date of his
discharge; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for
correction of any error or injustice expired on 6 March 1975.  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

___A____  ___TR___  __MBL__  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.




                                  ______James E. Anderson___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060001921                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060919                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19720307                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200,Chapter 10                    |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |A70                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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