RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        22 August 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060002690


      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. Wanda L. Waller               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Linda Simmons                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Meixell                  |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Jerome Pionk                  |     |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, correction of his DD Form 214
(Report of Separation from Active Duty) to show his character of service
was honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he thought he was given an honorable
discharge but the DD Form 214 he was sent had an error on it.  He contends
that his original DD Form 214 was burned in a fire and lost.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 1 November 1974.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 8 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.  The applicant enlisted on 14 July 1972 for a period of 3 years.

4.  While in basic combat training, the applicant went AWOL on 1 September
1972 and returned to military control on 13 February 1973.  On 16 February
1973, charges were preferred against the applicant for the AWOL period.
Trial by special court-martial was recommended.

5.  On 6 March 1973, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted
a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He indicated in his request that he
understood that he could be discharged under other than honorable
conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, that he
might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he might be ineligible
for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration and
that he might be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under
both Federal and State law.  He also acknowledged that he might encounter
substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an undesirable discharge.
 He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
6.  The separation authority denied the applicant's request for discharge
and returned his case for a court-martial.

7.  The applicant went AWOL again on 23 April 1973, was apprehended by
civil authorities, and returned to military control on 20 September 1974.
On
30 September 1974 charges were preferred against the applicant for the AWOL
periods (1 September 1972 to 13 February 1973 and 23 April 1973 to
20 September 1974).

8.  On 4 October 1974, after consulting with counsel, the applicant
submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He indicated in his
request that he understood that he could be discharged under other than
honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate,
that he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he might be
ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans
Administration and that he might be deprived of his rights and benefits as
a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He also acknowledged that he
might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an
undesirable discharge.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own
behalf.

9.  On 10 October 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable
discharge.

10.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable
conditions with an undesirable discharge on 1 November 1974 under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the
service.  He had served 5 months and 9 days of total active service with
679 days of lost time due to AWOL.

11.  Item 9c (Character of Service) on the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows
the entry, “UND COND OTH THAN HON” [under conditions other than honorable].


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

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.  At the time, an undesirable
discharge was normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record does not support the applicant’s contention that
he was given an honorable discharge.  Therefore, there is no basis for
granting the applicant’s request.

2.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 1 November 1974; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 31
October 1977.  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

LS_____  __JM____  _JP_____  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 Simmons_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060002690                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060822                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19741101                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 Chapter 10                   |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |For the good of the service             |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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