RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            07 September 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20060002023


      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. David Haasenritter            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jonathan Rost                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Susan Powers                  |     |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 general discharge be upgraded to
honorable.

2.  The applicant states that he would like a clean record because he has
two sons in the military and one son is due for retirement and he would
like to share his discharge papers with him.

3.  The applicant provides a photo containing a picture of his son.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 26 March 1968.  The application submitted in this case is dated
30 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.  He was inducted on 16 February 1967 at the age of 24 and was
transferred to Fort Jackson, South Carolina, to undergo his basic combat
training.  On 21 March 1967, he went absent without leave (AWOL) and
remained absent until he was returned to military control on 29 March 1967.


4.  On 29 March 1967, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him
for the AWOL offense.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay,
extra duty, and restriction.

5.  The applicant again went AWOL on 5 April 1967 and remained absent until
he was returned to military control at Fort Dix, New Jersey on 29 June
1967. Charges were preferred against him for this AWOL offense.

6.  On 26 July 1967, he was convicted by a summary court-martial for being
AWOL from 5 April 1967 to 29 June 1967.  He was sentenced to perform hard
labor without confinement for 45 days.

7.  He again went AWOL on 1 September 1967 and remained absent until he was
returned to military control at Fort Dix on 9 October 1967 and charges were
preferred against him for this AWOL offense.

8.  He went AWOL again on 24 October 1967 and remained absent until he was
again returned to military control at Fort Dix on 10 January 1968 and was
placed in confinement.  Charges were preferred against the applicant and on
25 January 1968, he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL
from 1 September to 9 October 1967 and from 24 October 1967 to 10 January
1968.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and a
forfeiture of pay.  He was transferred to Fort Knox, Kentucky to serve his
confinement.

9.  On 1 March 1968, he underwent a psychiatric evaluation and was deemed
to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and to
adhere to the right.  He was cleared for any administrative action deemed
appropriate by the command.

10.  On 13 March 1968, the applicant’s commander initiated action to
separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-
212 for unfitness due to his frequent involvement in incidents of a
discreditable nature with military authorities.

11.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived all of his rights
and declined the opportunity to submit a statement in his own behalf.

12.  The appropriate authority (a major general) approved the
recommendation for discharge on 19 March 1968 and directed that he be
furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

13.  Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions
on 26 March 1968, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for
unfitness due to his frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable
nature with military authorities.  He had served 3 months and 2 days of
active service and had 312 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

14.  On 25 January 1976, he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board
(ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.  He contended at that time that he
could not read and write and was ashamed to let anyone know and that he had
a family to support and went AWOL to work to support his family.  The ADRB
determined that there was sufficiently mitigating circumstances to warrant
an upgrade of his discharge and voted to upgrade his discharge to a general
discharge on
31 August 1976.
15.  He again applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge to
honorable on 7 September 1977 and was granted a personal appearance before
that board. He asserted at that time that he should not have been inducted
and should have been given a hardship discharge because he was the sole
supporter of his family, that he could not read and write, and that based
on his post-service conduct, he deserved a fully honorable discharge.  The
ADRB voted unanimously to deny his request for a fully honorable discharge
on 13 February 1979.

16.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect, at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6a(1) of the
regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent
incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were
subject to separation for unfitness.  An undesirable discharge was normally
considered appropriate.

17.  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.  Notwithstanding the actions of the ADRB, the applicant’s administrative
discharge was conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable
at the time, with no indication of any violations of the applicant’s
rights.

2.  The character of the discharge appears to be commensurate with the
applicant’s overall record of service when considering the circumstances of
the case, his repeated absences and the fact that he never completed his
training.

3.  Accordingly, his service does not rise to the level of a fully
honorable discharge.

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 that requirement.

5.  Records show the applicant exhausted his administrative remedies in
this case when his case was last reviewed by the ADRB on 13 February 1979.
As a result, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of
any error or injustice to this Board expired on 12 February 1982.  The
applicant did not file within the ABCMR's 3-year statute of limitations and
has not provided 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

_____DH   ____JR _  ____SP  _  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.




                                  ____David Haasenritter_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060002023                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060907                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(GD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1968/03/26                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-212 . . . . .                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |UNFIT FI                                |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES                  |583/A51.00                              |
|1.144.5000              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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