RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        14 September 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060002540


      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. Maria C. Sanchez              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Eric N. Andersen              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Rose M. Lys                   |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Richard O. Murphy             |     |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 her late husband's, a former
service member (FSM), second discharge be upgraded to either an honorable
or a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that even though he did not receive
benefits, she, as the widow, and their son should be entitled to the
benefits.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement, dated 12 December
2005; a Marriage License, Wayne County, Michigan, dated 29 November 1985; a
State of Michigan Certificate of Death, dated 5 January 2004; Saint Joseph
Mercy Health System Anatomic Path Results; two DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces
of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the periods 26
September 1969 through 11 October 1970 and 12 October 1970 through 25 April
1973; and a DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) in support of her
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 25 April 1973, the date of the FSM's discharge.  The
application submitted in this case is dated 12 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 FSM enlisted in the Army on 26 September 1969.  After completion of
basic and advanced individual training, he was awarded 31B (Field Radio
Mechanic).  The FSM served in Italy during the period 8 April 1970 through
12 November 1970.  He was honorably discharged on 11 October 1970 for the
purpose of immediate reenlistment.  The FSM reenlisted on 12 October 1970
and served in Vietnam during the period 16 January 1971 through 7 December
1971.

4.  Item 44 (Time Lost Under Section 972, Title 10, United States Code and
Subsequent to Normal Date ETS) of the DA Form 20 shows the FSM was absent
without leave (AWOL) during the period 7 January 1973 through 13 March
1973.
5.  A DA Form 3836 (Notice of Return of US Army Member from Unauthorized
Absence) shows the FSM was apprehended by civil authorities and returned to
military control on 16 March 1973.

6.  The facts and circumstances of the FSM's discharge are only partially
available for review with this case.  On 5 April 1973, the commanding
officer of Personnel, Control Facility, U.S. Army School/Training Center
and Fort Gordon, Fort Gordon shows that the FSM submitted a request for
Discharge For the Good of the Service under the provisions of chapter 10 of
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel).  The
commanding officer stated that on 22 March 1973 the FSM was interviewed by
the executive officer, provided a statement that he had financial problems
and hardship conditions, and that he understood the meaning and effects of
an undesirable discharge and desired such action.

7.  On 10 April 1973, the major general in command of Headquarters, United
States School/Training Center and Fort Gordon approved the FSM's request
for discharge and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge
Certificate and reduced to the lowest grade.

8.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged on 25 April
1973, under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, for
the good of the service and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate
with his service characterized as under other than honorable conditions.
He served 2 years, 4 months, and 6 days of net active service and had
68 days of lost time.

9.  There is no evidence in the available records which shows that the
applicant or the FSM applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an
upgrade of the discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitation.

10.  The applicant submitted a self-authored statement, dated 12 December
2005. She states that it was very sad that her husband did not receive
Veterans Affairs benefits and she is now requesting assistance for herself
and their son.  She continues that her husband served in the Army to fight
for our country during the period 26 September 1969 through 11 October
1970, received an honorable discharge for the purpose of immediate
reenlistment, and continued to serve until his second discharge on 25 April
1973.




11.  The applicant states that it is true that her husband did not report
back after being on leave but he was only absent for approximately 2 – 4
weeks.  She continues that the service record shows that her husband was
dropped from the rolls on 9 January 1973 for being AWOL.  The applicant
argues that on 14 March 1973, the FSM served as a "Duty Foreman" at Fort
Gordon, Georgia which "shows his ability and pride to serve our country."

12.  The applicant further states that her husband suffered from post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as well as Type II Diabetes.  She
concludes that her husband’s discharge under other than honorable
conditions was due to his life in Vietnam which caused the PTSD that
affected their family.

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.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, 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 (emphasis
added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization
would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be
resolved in favor of the individual.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, 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 requests that the FSM's discharge be upgraded to a
general under honorable conditions discharge or honorable conditions
discharge.


2.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, the applicant's request for
separation under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200
for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial was voluntary,
administratively correct, and in compliance with applicable regulations.

3.  There is no evidence which shows the applicant was not properly and
equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the
time that all requirements of law and regulations were not met, or the
rights of the applicant were not fully protected throughout the separation
process.  Absent such evidence, regularity must be presumed in this case.

4.  The FSM's record shows that he had 68 days of lost time.  Therefore,
the FSM's service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct
and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Based on his record of
indiscipline, the FSM is not entitled to either a general under honorable
conditions discharge or an honorable discharge.

5.  The ABCMR does not grant requests for upgrade of discharges solely for
the purpose of making the applicant eligible for benefits.

6.  Records show the FSM should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 25 April 1973, the date of his
discharge; therefore, the time for the FSM to file a request for correction
of any error or injustice expired on 24 April 1976.  However, the applicant
did not become eligible to apply to the ABCMR until 18 December 2003, the
date of the FSM's death.  Therefore, the applicant filed within the ABCMR's
statute of limitations.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_ROM___  _RML___  __ENA___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.




                                  ______________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060002540                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060914                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1973/04/25                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, chapter 10                  |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |For the good of the service in lieu     |
|                        |trial by CM                             |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000.0000                           |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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