RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        19 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060005457


      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. Melinda Darby                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jeffrey Redmann               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Ronald 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 that his discharge under other than honorable
conditions be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he made a mistake at the time in
question. He states that personal, marital and alcohol problems led to his
going absent without leave (AWOL).  He contends that he now has his life
together and is making progress.  He also states that he has a new family,
he is employed, he attends church, and he is a member of the Elks Lodge.

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 23 July 1986.  The application submitted in this case is
undated; however, it was received in this office on 15 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 enlisted on 21 November 1978 for a period of 4 years.  He
successfully completed One Station Unit Training in military occupational
specialty 13B (cannon crewman).  He reenlisted on 21 May 1982 for a period
of 6 years.

4.  On 19 December 1985, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being AWOL from 20 October 1985 to 25 October 1985.  His
punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, a foffeiture of pay
(suspended), and extra duty.

5.  On 17 March 1986, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for using marijuana.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to
E-2, a forfeiture of pay, and extra duty.

6.  On 2 April 1986, the applicant went AWOL and returned to military
control on 15 June 1986.  On 19 June 1986, charges were preferred against
the applicant for the AWOL period.

7.  On 19 June 1986, the applicant consulted with counsel and requested
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 he might be discharged under conditions other than honorable and
furnished an other than honorable discharge; that he might be ineligible
for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration; that
he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits; and that he might be
ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and
State law.  He also acknowledged that he might expect to encounter
substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an other than honorable
discharge.  He elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.

8.  In an interview on 2 July 1986, the applicant stated that his AWOL was
due to adjustment problems and he felt pulled between his family and the
military.

9.  On 16 July 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant's
request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under
other than honorable conditions.

10.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable
conditions on 23 July 1986 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 7 years, 5 months, and 19 days of total active service
with 75 days of AWOL.

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

12.  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.

13.  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.

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.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be
resolved in favor of the individual.

15.  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.  The applicant’s claim that personal, marital and alcohol problems
caused him to go AWOL does not provide a sufficient basis for upgrading his
discharge.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant was
diagnosed with alcohol abuse or dependency prior to his discharge.  There
is also no evidence the applicant sought assistance from his chain of
command or chaplain on a way to resolve his problems within established
Army procedures prior to going AWOL.

2. Good post service conduct alone is normally not a basis for upgrading a
discharge.

3.  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.

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

5.  Since the applicant’s record of service included two nonjudicial
punishments and 75 days of lost time, 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.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 23 July 1986; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 22
July 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

MD____  __JR____  __RG____  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 Darby_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060005457                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061019                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19860723                                |
|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]