RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        24 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060006060


      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. Paul Wright                   |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Carmen Duncan                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jerome L. Pionk               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Rea M. Nuppenau               |     |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, in effect, that his Under Other Than Honorable
Conditions Discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states. In effect, false information was given by
recruiting personnel.  His discharge does not reflect the true person he is
and has become. Based on a bad decision he made at age 18 without first
discussing the decision with more experienced persons, an upgrade would
allow him to continue his career in law enforcement.

3.  The applicant provides a cover letter from his attorney, a DD Form 293
(Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces
of the United States), and 5 character reference letters.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests, in effect, a review of the applicant's discharge.

2.  Counsel states he is submitting the applicant's application for upgrade
with supporting documentation.

3.  Counsel provides no other statement in behalf of the applicant or
further documentation.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 23 August 1984.  The application submitted in this case
is dated
27 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.  On 21 September 1983, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a
period of 4 years.  He completed Infantry One-Station Unit Training (OSUT)
at Fort Benning, Georgia and was awarded military occupational specialty
(MOS) 11B, Infantryman.  Subsequently, he completed Airborne Training at
Fort Bragg, North Carolina and was then assigned to Company A, 1st
Battalion, 504th Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg.

4.  On 7 May 1984, he departed from his unit in an absent without leave
(AWOL) status.  He was declared a deserter on 6 June 1984.  Subsequently,
he was apprehended by civilian authorities and returned to military control
on 6 July 1984.

5.  On 13 July 1984, charges were preferred against the applicant for being
in an AWOL status from 7 May 1984 to 6 July 1984.

6.  On 13 July 1984 after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested
separation under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200
for the good of the service.  He declined to make a statement in his own
behalf.

7.  On 30 July 1984, the unit commander forwarded the discharge packet to
the General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA).  In it the applicant
stated he understood the consequences of his request after consulting with
counsel.  Additionally, the commander and all intermediate commanders
recommended approval of the request with an Under Other Than Honorable
Conditions discharge.

8.  On 10 August 1984, the GCMCA directed the applicant's discharge with a
characterization of Under Other Than Honorable Conditions and reduction to
pay grade E-1.

9.  On 23 August 1984, the applicant was discharged from active duty with
an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge.  He had 9 months and
3 days of creditable active Federal service.  He had 60 days of lost time.
He was awarded the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge for both
the M-16 Rifle and the Hand Grenade (2nd Class), the Army Service Ribbon,
and the Parachutist Badge.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) 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.

11.  There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board (ADRB) within that Board's 15-year statute of limitations.  It
is noted that only now has he submitted an application (DD Form 293) dated
27 March 2006 as an enclosure to his application to this Board.
Regrettably, he no longer has an option of applying to the ADRB.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant is not clear on what is meant by his statement "False
information [was] given by recruiting personnel."  He makes no further
elaboration as to how this relates to his period of AWOL.  The Board notes
that he did consult with counsel and fully understood the consequences of
accepting a chapter 10 discharge.  He did have the opportunity to submit a
statement at the time of discharge to mitigate or explain the circumstances
of his AWOL, but he chose not to do so.  Even now neither the applicant nor
his current counsel gives any indication of the reason(s) for the AWOL.
The fact he was 18 years old is without merit.  Many other Soldiers aged 18
continued to serve honorably without resorting to AWOL.  Additionally, he
had other avenues of relief to resolve any problems without resorting to
misconduct in the form of AWOL.

2.  The Board is cognizant of the applicant's good post-service conduct and
his statement that he desires to pursue a career in law enforcement.
However, none of these factors, either individually or in sum, warrant the
relief requested.

3.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions
of chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by
court-martial was administratively correct and in conformance with
applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the request was made
under coercion or duress.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 23 August 1984; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
22 August 1987.  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

__cd____  __jlp___  __rmn___  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.



                                        Carmen Duncan
                                  ______________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060006060                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061024                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(UOTHC)                                 |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19840823                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, Chap 10                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.7000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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