RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        9 November 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060004964


      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:

|     |Ms. Margaret Patterson            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert Rogers                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Ernestine Fields              |     |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.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he served one year in Vietnam and
received two awards of the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star Medal with
First Oak Leaf Cluster.  He contends that he was young and too immature to
accept the responsibilities so he went absent without leave (AWOL) after
going home for the weekend.  He states that he got hooked on drugs while in
Vietnam and that he needs help from the Department of Veterans Affairs
(DVA).  He also states that he has Type II diabetes, a skin condition, and
many other ailments or health problems due to his exposure to Agent Orange.
 He further states that he is suffering from Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 14 April 1971.  The application submitted in this case is dated
28 April 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 12 May 1948.  He enlisted on 15 April 1968
for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed basic combat training
and advanced individual training in military occupational specialty 11B
(light weapons infantryman).

4.  On 10 July 1968, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for failure to repair.  His punishment consisted of an oral
reprimand and restriction.

5.  The applicant served in Vietnam from 9 September 1968 through 26 August
1969.  His authorized awards for his service in Vietnam included the
Vietnam Service Medal with four bronze service stars, the Republic of
Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device 1960, one award of the Purple Heart, the
Combat Infantryman Badge, and one award of the Bronze Star Medal.

6.  On 10 February 1970, the applicant was convicted by a special court-
martial of two specifications of being AWOL (from 20 October 1969 to 10
November 1969 and from 16 November 1969 to 13 January 1970).  He was
sentenced to be reduced to private first class and 30 days of restriction.
On 17 March 1970, the convening authority approved the sentence.

7.  On 9 April 1970, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment consisted of a
forfeiture of pay, restriction, and extra duty.

8.  On 6 June 1970, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment consisted of a
forfeiture of pay, restriction, and extra duty.

9.  On 27 July 1970, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being AWOL from 13 July 1970 to 20 July 1970.  His punishment
consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction, and extra duty.

10.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he
also went AWOL for one day (1 June 1970).  He went AWOL on 17 August 1970
and returned to military control on 15 September 1970.  He went AWOL again
on
5 October 1970 and returned to military control on 1 February 1971.  The
charge sheet is not available.

11.  On 3 February 1971, after consulting with counsel, the applicant
submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He indicated in his
request that he understood that he could be discharged under other than
honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate,
that he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he might be
ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans
Administration and that he might be deprived of his rights and benefits as
a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He also acknowledged that he
might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an
undesirable discharge.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own
behalf.

12.  On 26 March 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable
discharge.



13.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable
discharge on
14 April 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10,
for the good of the service.  He had served 2 years, 3 months, and 27 days
of total active service with 240 days of lost time due to AWOL.

14.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant was diagnosed
with drug abuse or dependency prior to his discharge.

15.  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.

16.  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.

17.  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.

18.  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.  Age is not a sufficiently mitigating factor.  The applicant was almost
20 years old when he enlisted and he successfully completed basic training
and advanced individual training.

2.  Although the applicant contends that he got hooked on drugs while
serving in Vietnam, there is no evidence of record which shows he was
diagnosed with drug dependence prior to his discharge.

3.  A discharge is not upgraded for the purpose of obtaining DVA benefits.

4.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial,
was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable
regulations.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could
have voiced his concerns and he failed to do so.

5.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

6.  The applicant’s service in Vietnam and his awards and decorations were
noted.  However, his record of service also included four nonjudicial
punishments, one special court-martial conviction, and 240 days of lost
time.  As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not
meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army
personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently
meritorious to warrant a general or honorable discharge.

7.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 14 April 1971; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 13
April 1974.  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

MP____  __RR____  __EF____  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.




                                  __Margaret Patterson__
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060004964                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061109                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19710414                                |
|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]