RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        3 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060004065


      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:

|     |Mr. Kenneth Wright                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas Ray                    |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Sherry Stone                  |     |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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to a
general or honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was released from the Army in
1971 after serving in Vietnam and being absent without leave (AWOL).  He
contends that since his discharge he has been an outstanding citizen,
maintained employment, been clean and sober for the last ten years, raised
a family, goes to church, and is a registered voter.

3.  The applicant provides three character reference letters.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 2 October 1970.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 6 March 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 2 June 1966 for a period of 3 years.  He
successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual
training in military occupational specialty 51B (carpenter).  On 26 October
1967, he was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment.  He
reenlisted on 27 October 1967 for a period of 4 years.

4.  On 17 November 1967, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being absent without proper authority from bed check.  His
punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and restriction.

5.  On 26 December 1967, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being AWOL from 21 December 1967 to 23 December 1967.  His
punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction, and 3 days of
kitchen police.

6.  On 6 April 1968, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for disobeying a lawful order and using disrespectful language
toward a superior noncommissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of a
reduction to E-3 (suspended), restriction, extra duty, and kitchen police
for 2 days.

7.  The applicant arrived in Vietnam on 6 July 1968.

8.  On 1 September 1968, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being AWOL for 15 minutes.  His punishment consisted of a
forfeiture of pay, restriction, and extra duty.

9.  The applicant departed Vietnam on 5 July 1969.

10.  The applicant went AWOL on 6 August 1969 and returned to military
control on 8 September 1969.  He went AWOL again on 4 November 1969 and
returned to military control on 1 July 1970.  He was placed into
confinement from 2 July 1970 to 20 August 1970.

11.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are
not contained in the available records.  However, the applicant’s DD Form
214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows that he was discharged with an
undesirable discharge on 2 October 1970 under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served
a total of 3 years, 5 months, and 4 days of creditable active service with
327 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

12.  The applicant provided three character reference letters from a
friend, his sister, and his pastor.  They attest that the applicant is
dependable, a productive citizen, a good friend, and that he attends church
on a regular basis.

13.  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.

14.  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.

15.  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.

16.  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 character reference letters submitted on behalf of the applicant
fail to show that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that
the applicant’s separation was administratively correct and in conformance
with applicable regulations.  Without having the discharge packet to
consider, it is presumed his characterization of service was commensurate
with his overall record of service.  As a result, there is no basis for
granting the applicant's request.

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 2 October 1970; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 1
October 1973.  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

KW____  _TR______  _SS____  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.




                                  ____Kenneth Wright________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060004065                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061003                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19701002                                |
|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]