RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            07 SEPTEMBER 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20060002946


      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. Deyon D. Battle               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Susan Powers                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jonathan Rost                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. David Haasenritter            |     |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 an
honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the type of discharge that he
received is too harsh considering the nature of his offense.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on date.  The application submitted in this case is dated
19 February 1968.

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.  After completing 3 years of service in the Army National Guard, orders
were published on 16 January 1968, ordering the applicant to active duty
for a period of 18 months and 15 days, as a small arms repairman, with an
effective date of 19 February 1968.

4.  While on active duty, he was assigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, when
he was convicted by a special court-martial, pursuant to his plea, on 18
July 1968, of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 2 April until 15 June
1968.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor (suspended for 4
months), and hard labor without confinement for 3 months.

5.  On 31 July 1968, the applicant submitted an application for separation
based on hardship or dependency.  In the application, he stated that in
December 1965, his father was injured in an accident while he was unloading
a truck.  The applicant stated that his father broke his back which later
caused him to begin losing his sight.  The applicant stated that his father
was totally disabled for life and unable to care for his family.

6.  The appropriate authority approved the application for a discharge
based on hardship and directed the issuance of a General Discharge
Certificate.  Accordingly, on 30 September 1968, the applicant was
discharged under honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 6, based on hardship.  He had approximately 83
days of lost time due to AWOL and he was furnished a General Discharge
Certificate.

7.  A review of the available records fails to show that the applicant ever
applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge
within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 6 of that regulation provides,
in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel because of genuine
dependency or hardship.  An application for such separation will be
approved when a service member can substantiate that his situation or
immediate family's situation has been aggravated to an excessive degree
since enlistment, that the condition is not temporary and that discharge
will improve the situation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant's contentions have been noted.  However, prior to his
discharge for hardship, he was convicted by a special court-martial of
being AWOL for 83 days.  While it is clear that his family was experiencing
a hardship while he was on active duty, the applicant's service was not
totally honorable as he had 83 days of lost time due to AWOL, which
resulted in his service being properly characterized as under honorable
conditions.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show 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.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 30 September 1968; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 29 September 1971.  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

__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.




                                  ______Susan Powers_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060002946                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060907                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19680930                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |CHAPTER 6/HARDSHIP                      |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES         1.  542  |144.3500/HARDSHIP                       |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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