RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        12 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060004357


      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. Joyce A. Wright               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John Infante                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Gerald J. Purcell             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Karmin S. Jenkins             |     |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 discharge, characterized as
under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that her discharge, characterized as
UOTHC, should be upgraded due to extenuating circumstances not taken into
account at the time of her discharge.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a police report and newspaper article
in support of her request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 26 April 1984, the date of her discharge.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 17 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's record shows she enlisted in the Regular Army on
21 March 1979, for 3 years, with an established expiration of term of
service (ETS) of 20 March 1982.  The applicant successfully completed basic
combat training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and advanced individual
training at Fort Gordon, Georgia.  On completion of her advanced training,
she was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) 36K, Tactical
Wire Operations Specialist.

4.  The applicant's records contain a copy of a DA Form 4187 (Personnel
Action), dated 28 March 1984, which shows that her status changed from
assigned not joined (ASNJ) to absent without leave (AWOL) effective
30 October 1980.  Section IV (Remarks), of the DA Form 4187, indicates that
she failed to report on her prescribed reporting date to Company B, 2nd
Aviation Battalion, APO SF 96224 [Korea].

5.  Her records also contain another DA Form 4187, dated 28 March 1984,
which shows that her status was changed from dropped from the rolls (DFR)
to attached/present for duty (PDY) effective 26 March 1984.  Section IV
(Remarks), of the DA Form 4187, indicates that she surrendered to military
authorities at Fort Knox, Kentucky, on 26 March 1984.

6.  Item 21 (Time Lost), of her DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record-
Part II), shows that she was AWOL from 30 October 1980 through 25 March
1984   (1,243 days).

7.  All the documents containing the facts and circumstances surrounding
the applicant's discharge are not present in the available records.
However, her    DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty) shows that on 26 April 1984, she was discharged under the
provisions of Army Regulation   635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, for
misconduct-pattern of misconduct, in the pay grade of E-1.  She was
furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  She had a
total of 1 year, 8 months, and 10 days of creditable service and 1,243 days
of lost time due to AWOL.

8.  Item 18 (Remarks), of the applicant's DD Form 214, shows she was
separated from service on incomplete records.

9.  The applicant provides a copy of a memorandum, dated 6 March 1990, from
the Chief of Police, Wichita, Kansas, to the National Service Office,
Disabled American Veteran (DAV) Administration.  The memorandum states that
the Chief asked a detective to confirm if one of his clients was questioned
in reference to a 1980 homicide case.  This person was the applicant.  It
was discovered that the applicant was questioned by investigators in
reference to a homicide occurring on 7 October 1980.  A taped statement was
obtained from her by the case detective.

10.  The applicant provides a copy of a newspaper article which indicates
that a man was found shot on a couch in a reputed party house in Wichita,
Kansas.

11.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of her discharge within its 15-year
statute of limitations.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and
prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific
categories include minor
disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious
offense, abuse of illegal drugs, and conviction by civil authorities.
Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly
established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.
 A discharge under other
than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged
under this chapter.

13.  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.

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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that
the applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance
with applicable regulations, with no procedural errors, which would tend to
jeopardize her rights.

2.  The applicant's record is void of facts and circumstances concerning
the events that led to her discharge from the Army. 

3.  The applicant contends that extenuating circumstances were not taken
into account at the time of her discharge.  The extenuating circumstances
the applicant refers to were not defined by her and because the case file
which led to her discharge is not available, are unknown.

4.  The evidence shows that she failed to report to her overseas assignment
and remained in an AWOL status for 1,243 days and later surrendered to
military authorities on 26 March 1984.  Prior to departing AWOL, there is
no evidence to show that she sought assistance for her extenuating
circumstances while serving on active duty.

5.  The police memorandum the applicant submitted regarding her being
questioned in reference to a 1980 homicide and the newspaper article
pertaining to man being shot, which were prepared after her discharge, have
been considered; however, these documents are inconclusive insofar as this
case is concerned.  This  evidence is insufficient in the mitigation of her
offense and to support her request for an upgrade of her discharge
characterized as UOTHC.

6.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant accumulated a total of
1,243 days of lost time due to AWOL.  An absence of this duration is
serious and there is insufficient evidence to show that the applicant now
deserves an upgrade of her discharge.

7.  There is no evidence in the applicant's records, and the applicant has
provided none, to show that she applied for an upgrade of her discharge to
the ADRB within its 15-year statute of limitations.

8.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must
show, to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise appear, that
the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit
evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

9.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 26 April 1984; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 25 April 1987.  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

_JI _____  __KSJ___  __GJP __  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.




                                  ___     John Infante_________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060004357                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061012                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19840426                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR  635-200, chapter 14-12b             |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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