RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        19 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060004952


      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. G. E. Vandenberg              |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Melinda M. Darby              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Ronald D. Gant                |     |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 his discharge be upgraded based
on post-service good conduct.

2.  The applicant states he was told that after two years his discharge
would be automatically upgraded.  He relates that he was young, dumb,
homesick, and did not understand the repercussions of his acts.  He states
that he went AWOL (absent without leave) to be with his girlfriend and just
stayed away until he was apprehended by the military police.  He indicates
that he when he received orders to Vietnam he was scared and he went AWOL
again.  He is a different person now and has spent his life making amends
for his past mistakes.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation
from Active Duty), and five letters of character and support that describe
the applicant as a trustworthy, reliable, and sincere Christian who serves
his church, as a deacon; his community; and is a caring, loving husband and
father.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The record shows the applicant entered active duty, at age 20, on
22 October 1968, completed basic combat and advanced individual training.

2.  On 29 May 1969 a special court-martial found the applicant guilty of
being AWOL for the periods 9 April 1969 through 13 April 1969 and 18 April
1969 through 19 May 1969.  He was sentenced to confinement for two months.
The sentence was suspended for six months at which time it would be
remitted.

3.  On 19 June 1969 the applicant went AWOL for a third time and remained
absent until 29 January 1975.

4.  On 31 January 1975 the applicant submitted a request for discharge
under the provisions of Presidential Proclamation Number 4313.  He
acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice, that he would receive an undesirable
discharge (UD) which would deprive him of all of his benefits as a veteran,
and that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian
life if he received an UD.

5.  The applicant was discharged with a UD on 31 January 1975.  He had
5 months and 22 days of creditable service with 556 days of lost time prior
to his normal expiration of term of service (ETS) and 1557 days of lost
time after his ETS.

6.  On 17 September 1975 the applicant was terminated from enrollment in
the Reconciliation Service Program without completing his period of
alternative service.  The termination was due to being fired from his job
for unsatisfactory performance and failure to respond to official
correspondence.

7.  Presidential Proclamation 4313, issued on 16 September 1974, provided
for the issuance of a clemency discharge to certain former Soldiers who
voluntarily entered into and completed an alternate restitution program
specifically designed for former Soldiers who received a less than
honorable discharge for AWOL related incidents between August 1964 and
March 1973.  Upon successful completion of up to 24 months alternate
service, former members would be granted a clemency discharge by the
President of the United States, thus restoring his or her affected civil
rights.  The clemency discharge did not effect the underlying discharge and
did not entitle the individual to any benefits administered by the Veterans
Administration.  Soldiers who were AWOL entered the program by returning to
military control and accepting a discharge in lieu of trial by court-
martial.  (NOTE: In any event, the clemency discharge did not affect the
individual's underlying discharge, and did not entitle him to any VA
benefits.)

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and
regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is
commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2.  The applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time
is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board notes that the
applicant was 20 years of age when he was inducted and had satisfactory
completed basic and advanced individual training before any negative
incidents were documented.  His satisfactory performance during his initial
training demonstrates his capacity to serve and shows that he was neither
too young nor too immature to serve honorably.

3.  While the applicant’s positive post service actions are noted, they are
not so meritorious as to outweigh the offenses that led to his discharge or
the fact that his record of only 5 months and 22 days of service which was
devoid of any evidence of significant redeeming service, and the fact that
he did not complete the required alternate service under Presidential
Proclamation 4313 requirements.



4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, 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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__MMD_  _JCR____  __RDG __  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.




                                  _     _Melinda M. Darby______
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060004952                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061019                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19750131                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          | DENY                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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