RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            14 September 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20060004071


      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. Eric Anderson                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Rose Lys                      |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Richard 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 that his discharge under other than honorable
conditions be upgraded to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that there were extenuating family
circumstances that led to his going absent without leave (AWOL) and that
his chain of command’s efforts to help produced no relief.  He goes on to
state that his discharge should be upgraded because it is unjust for him to
have to suffer the consequences of such a discharge given his conduct and
efficiency ratings were good.  He also states that his record of promotions
shows he was a good Soldier and he has been a good citizen since his
discharge.  He also states that his youth and immaturity impaired his
ability to serve as well as his low aptitude and education.  He continues
by stating that he had a deprived background and that his family problems,
personal problems and financial problems also impaired his ability to serve
and he expects a detailed explanation from the Board if the Board does not
agree that his discharge should be upgraded.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a first endorsement of his request for
discharge for the good of the service explaining his reason for going AWOL
and a copy of his report of separation (DD Form 214).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 13 June 1986.  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 was born on 11 March 1962 and graduated from high school
in June 1981.  On 9 February 1984, while in Tampa, Florida, he enlisted in
the Regular Army for a period of 3 years and training as a power generation
equipment repairer.  He was married at the time of his enlistment and he
indicated that his spouse, mother and sister resided in Orlando, Florida.

4.  He completed his basic combat training at Fort Dix, New Jersey and his
advanced individual training at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, before being
assigned to Fort Hood, Texas as his first permanent duty assignment on 16
July 1984.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 November 1984.

5.  On 21 December 1984, the applicant departed on ordinary leave during
the Christmas Holiday period with a return date of 8 January 1985.  He did
not return and was reported as being absent without leave (AWOL) on 9
January 1985.

6.  The applicant’s squad leader made several trips to his off-post
residence and in each instance he inquired of the landlord and neighbors as
to whether the applicant had been seen.  On his last trip a neighbor
informed the sergeant that the applicant’s wife had said that when they
departed on leave they were not returning because of bad checks.

7.  The Commander’s Report of Inquiry/Unauthorized Absence (DA Form 4384)
indicates that the possible contributing factors causing AWOL were unknown.
 A review of his records fails to show any indication that the applicant
had sought help from his chain of command or surfaced issues that were
affecting his family and/or job.

8.   The applicant appointed the first sergeant to clear the applicant from
the installation and it was discovered that the applicant’s field gear
(TA50) could not be located and resulted in a Report of Survey being
conducted, which found the applicant pecuniary liable for the cost of the
equipment.  Additionally, it was discovered that the applicant had eight
overdue library books from the post library.

9.  The applicant remained absent in a deserter status until he was
returned to military control in Orlando, Florida on 16 April 1986 and was
transferred to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, where charges were preferred
against him for the AWOL offense.

10.  The facts and circumstances surrounding his administrative discharge
are not present in the available records.  However, his records do contain
a duly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214) which shows that he
was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 13 June 1986, under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by
           court-martial.  He had served 1 year and 28 days of total active
service and had 462 days (1 year, 3 months and 7 days) of lost time due to
AWOL.

11.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever
applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge
within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the 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 charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge
for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A condition
of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit
guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which
authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and
they must indicate that they have been briefed and understand the
consequences of such a request as well as the discharge they might receive.
 A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered
appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that
the applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid
trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance
with applicable regulations.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore
were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  After being afforded the opportunity to assert his innocence before a
trial by court-martial, he voluntarily requested a discharge for the good
of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a
felony conviction on his records.

4.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted; however, they are not
sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his
undistinguished record of service and the extensive length of his absence
during such a short period of service.

5.  The applicant was a high school graduate at the time he enlisted at the
age of 22.  While he contends that his education and youth and immaturity
impaired his ability to serve, he successfully served for over a year
without incident until he went AWOL.
6.  He also contends that his ability to serve was impaired by his deprived
background, family, marital, financial and personal problems; however, he
has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application and
the evidence of record that such was the case.

7.  The applicant’s contention that it is unjust that he has to suffer the
adverse consequences of his discharge has been noted and found to be
without merit.  The applicant received the discharge he requested and he
acknowledged at the time that he was aware of what he was requesting and
the possible consequences of such a discharge.  While he may have changed
his mind after being discharged, that in itself is not a basis to upgrade a
discharge that properly characterizes his service.  The applicant was
actually AWOL for more time than he served.

8.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 13 June 1986; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 12 June 1989.  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

___EA __  ___RL __  ___RM___  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.




                                  _____  Eric Anderson_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060004071                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060914                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(UOTHC)                                 |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1986/06/13                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR600-200/CH10 . . . . .                |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |GD OF SVC                               |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES         1.       |689/A70.00                              |
|144.7000                |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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