RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            19 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20060005918


      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. Jessie B. Strickland          |     |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 her undesirable discharge be upgraded to an
honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that she was pregnant at the time she was
considered a deserter and was picked up by authorities and that she was
lied to about her discharge.  She goes on to state that she was told at the
time that she could remain in the Army and have her baby and get an
honorable discharge or she could accept an undesirable discharge and would
still get some of her benefits; however, she has since discovered that she
is not entitled to any benefits.  She continues by stating that she does
not think that she should have been lied to at the time and states that she
desires an honorable discharge for her children to be proud of and for her
to receive military funeral benefits.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents with her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 29 March 1974.  The application submitted in this case is dated
18 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 in Knoxville, Tennessee, on 29 July 1971, for a
period of 3 years and training as a clerk typist.  She was transferred to
Fort McClellan, Alabama to undergo her training.

4.  On 1 December 1971, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against her for
being absent without leave (AWOL) from 26 November to 29 November 1971.
Her punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay.

5.  She was transferred to Fort Dix, New Jersey, on 12 January 1972 for
duty as a general clerk in the overseas replacement detachment.  She was
advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 March 1972.

6.  On 26 May 1972, she was convicted by a summary court-martial of being
AWOL from 13 April to 27 April 1972.  She was sentenced to be reduced to
the pay grade of E-1, to forfeit $100.00 and to be restricted to the limits
of Fort Dix for 25 days.

7.  The applicant again went AWOL from 19 October to 30 October 1972;
however, the record is silent as to any punishment imposed.

8.  On 24 August 1973, she was transferred to Fort Huachuca, Arizona and on
23 October 1973 she again went AWOL.  She remained absent in desertion
until she was apprehended by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents
in Lake City, Tennessee on 26 February 1974 and was returned to military
control at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, where charges were preferred against
her for the AWOL offense.

9.  On 12 March 1974, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant
submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service, under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by
court-martial.  In her request she indicated that she understood the
charges that had been preferred against her, that she was making the
request of her own free will, without coercion from anyone and that she was
aware of the implications attached to her request.  She also admitted that
she was guilty of the charges against her or of lesser included offenses
which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.
 Additionally, she acknowledged that she had been advised of the maximum
punishment she could receive for her offense if convicted by the
contemplated court-martial.   She acknowledged that she understood that she
could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that
she might be deprived of all benefits as a result of such a discharge.  She
further elected to submit a statement in her own behalf whereas she
asserted that she was applying for a chapter 10 discharge because she had
been AWOL for about 4 months, was 7 months pregnant and she figured that
she would not get any other kind of discharge anyways.  She also stated
that the Army was no place for a pregnant lady.

10.  The appropriate authority (a major general) approved her request on
25 March 1974 and directed that she be furnished an Undesirable Discharge
Certificate.

11.  Accordingly, she was discharged under other than honorable conditions
on  29 March 1974, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter
10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial.  She
had served 2 years, 3 months and 15 days of total active service and had
136 days of lost time due to AWOL.

12.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that she ever
applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge
within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the 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 charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge
for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A condition
of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit
guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which
authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and
they must indicate that they have been briefed and understand the
consequences of such a request as well as the discharge they might receive.
 A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered
appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore
were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board; however, they
are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to her
overall record of undistinguished service and the length of her
unauthorized absence.

4.  After being afforded the opportunity to assert her innocence before a
trial by court-martial, she voluntarily requested a discharge for the good
of the service in hopes of avoiding a punitive discharge and having a
felony conviction on her records.  In doing so she admitted guilt to the
charges against her.

5.  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.


6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 29 March 1974; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 28 March 1977.  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                 |AR20060005918                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061019                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(UD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1974/03/29                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200/CH10. . . . .                |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |GD OF SVC                               |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES                  |689/A70.00                              |
|1.144.7000              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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