RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        11 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060004996


      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. Patrick McGann                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. David Gallagher               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Roland Venable                |     |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.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was not court-martialed.  He
contends that the discharge was in the best interests of the Army and
himself.  He also states that he has never had any other trouble with the
military.

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 20 May 1985.  The application submitted in this case is dated
14 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.  Having prior service in the Army National Guard and the U.S. Army
Reserve, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 September 1979 for
a period of 3 years.  He served as a combat engineer, remained on active
duty through continuous reenlistments, and attained the rank of specialist
four.

4.  The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 24 August 1984, was
arrested by civil authorities, and returned to military control on 7 March
1985.

5.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are
not contained in the available records.  However, the applicant’s DD Form
214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that he
was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 20 May 1985 under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the
service, in lieu of court-martial.  He had served a total of 6 years, 9
months, and 9 months of creditable active service with 195 days of lost
time due to AWOL.

6.  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.
7.  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,
submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial
by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges
have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.
Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under
other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

8.  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.

9.  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.  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.

2.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 20 May 1985; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 19
May 1988.  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

PM_____  __DG___  ___RV___  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.




                                  ___Patrick McGann_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060004996                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061011                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19850520                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 Chapter 10                   |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |For the good of the service, in lieu of |
|                        |court-martial                           |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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