RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        7 December 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060006521


      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. Beverly A. Young              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Richard Dunbar                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Dale DeBruler                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Larry Racster                 |     |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 be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states that he requested an early discharge when the
Vietnam War was over.  His brother told him that if he told them [Army] he
took drugs then they [Army] would let him out.  He states that he did not
know he would receive an undesirable discharge.  He states he was drafted.
He wanted to go to college, but he wanted to serve his country.  He states
he could have gone to college, but he felt that fighting for his country
was more important.  He never got a chance to go to Vietnam.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 19 January 1972.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 3 May 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 was inducted into the Army on 3 February 1971.  He
completed basic combat training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and was
reassigned to Fort Polk, Louisiana for advanced individual training (AIT).
At the completion of AIT and basic airborne training, he was awarded
military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).

4.  The applicant was advanced to private first class on 5 August 1971 and
was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina as a rifleman.

5.  The applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he was
absent without leave (AWOL) on 1 October 1971 and was dropped from the unit
rolls on 1 November 1971.  In the Commander’s Inquiry, dated 1 November
1971, the unit commander stated that there were no specific reasons for the
applicant’s AWOL and the decision to go AWOL was made on the spur of the
moment.  The unit commander also stated that there was no record of any
evidence or indication of suspected foul play or mental instability which
could have caused the absence.  In addition, the unit commander stated that
there was no record of any evidence of the applicant’s intent to miss
movement through neglect or design, to avoid hazardous duty, to shirk
important service, or not to return.

6.  On 6 December 1971, charges were preferred against the applicant for
being AWOL from 1 October 1971 through 28 October 1971 and from 4 November
1971 through 1 December 1971.

7.  On 16 December 1971, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and
voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so, he
admitted guilt to the offenses charged and acknowledged that he might
encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that he might be
ineligible for many or all Army benefits administered by the Veterans
Affairs (VA) if an undesirable discharge was issued.  The applicant
submitted a statement in his own behalf.

8.  In support of his request for discharge, the applicant stated that he
registered for the draft five months too late and was three months late
taking his physical.  He never got adjusted to the Army life.  His nerves
got worse when he was in AIT and he started smoking grass and taking pills.
 He was stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina and he started smoking
grass again after two weeks.  He went home on leave and it seemed like a
big relief.  He returned to duty and things began to bother him again.  He
stayed for two more weeks, then he went AWOL. His father told him that they
[Army] would let him out if he would explain to them what was wrong, but
they did not want to hear what he had to say.  He was given a direct order.
 He went AWOL again and disobeyed the direct order.  He was AWOL for a
month.  His brother told him that they would give him a discharge, so he
turned himself in.

9.  On 19 January 1972, the separation authority approved the discharge
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 with issuance
of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

10.  The applicant was discharged from active duty on 19 January 1972 under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the
service with an undesirable discharge.  He completed 8 months and 9 days of
active military service with 100 days of lost time due to AWOL.

11.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant applied to
the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.


12.  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 at
any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for
discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A
discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered
appropriate.  However, at the time of the applicant's separation the
regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, 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, or is
otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly
inappropriate.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, 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 voluntary request for separation under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, 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.

2.  The applicant’s service record shows he was charged for being AWOL on
two separate occasions for a total of for 100 days.  As a result, his
service record was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel for an
upgrade to an honorable or general discharge.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted; however, they are not
sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade in this case.

4.  There is no evidence of record which indicates the actions taken in his
case were in error or unjust, therefore, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.
5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 19 January 1972; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 18 January 1975.  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

RD______  DD______  LR______  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.




                                  Richard Dunbar________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060006521                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061207                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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