RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        30 November 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060005600


      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:

|     |Mr. William F. Crain              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Alice Muellerweiss            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Donald L. Lewy                |     |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 (UD) discharge be
upgraded.

2.  The applicant states that he is Canadian National who joined the U. S.
Army knowing he would be asked to fight for this country.  Unfortunately,
at the time of his enlistment he was experiencing serious marital problems
that led to divorce.  Being young (19 years of age) he did not handle the
situation well and fell in with a bad crowd and committed the offense that
led to his civilian conviction and his periods of AWOL (absence without
leave).

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 31 March 1969, the date of his discharge.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 8 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, a Canadian National, enlisted on 23 November 1966, at
the age of 18.  He completed training and was awarded the military
occupational specialty (MOS) 67N (Single Turbine Helicopter Repairman).

4.  On 25 July 1968 a summary court-martial found the applicant guilty of
being AWOL for the period 5 through 9 July 1968.

5.  The applicant was then AWOL for the periods of 12 through 17 July 1968,
and 26 September 1968 through 28 March 1969.



6.  On 12 July 1968, while in an AWOL status, the applicant was arrested by
civilian authorities on the charges of armed robbery and conspiracy.  He
was convicted of these charges and sentenced, on 26 September 1968, to
serve in confinement for eight years.

7.  The Official Military Personnel File contains no documentation related
to the applicant’s discharge except a copy of Headquarters, Personnel
Center, United States Army Garrison Troop Command, Fort Bragg Special
Orders Number 61, dated 28 March 1969, which directed the applicant be
discharged for unfitness with an UD.

8.  The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged on 28 March
1969, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206, due to his civilian
conviction.  He had 1 year, 9 months, and 19 days of creditable service
with 197 days of lost time.  His only award is listed as the National
Defense Service Medal.

9.  There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board within its 15-year statutory limit for review.

10.  Army Regulation 635-206, then in effect, provided, in pertinent part,
that an enlisted member who was convicted by a civilian court of an offense
for which the authorized punishment under the UCMJ included confinement of
1 year or more was to be considered for elimination.  The requirement for a
board of officers could be waived by the separation authority provided the
individual concerned was physically in civil custody at the time.  When
such separation was warranted an undesirable discharge was considered
appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the
discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations
applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate
with his overall record.

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 19 years of age, had satisfactorily completed training and
had served for over a year before any negative incidents are documented.
His satisfactory performance demonstrates his capacity to serve and shows
that he was neither too young nor immature.

3.  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.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 31 March 1969; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 30 March 1972.  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

__AM___  __DLL ___  __WFC__  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.




                                  __      William F. Crain_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060005600                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061130                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19690331                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-206. . . . .                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |




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