RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        7 December 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060006968


      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. John J. Wendland, Jr.         |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Dale E. DeBruler              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Larry W. 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, in effect, upgrade of his under honorable
conditions discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he feels his service to this
country warrants an honorable discharge.  He also states, in effect, since
his discharge he has changed his life and contributes to society in a
positive way.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a DD Form 214 (Report of Separation
from Active Duty), with an effective date of 10 April 1975; two DD Forms
214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge),
with effective dates of 14 January 1972 and 22 October 1965; and a copy of
Army Regulation 15-185 (Boards, Commissions, and Committees - Army Board
for Correction of Military Records), dated 29 March 2000.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 10 April 1975, the date of his discharge.  The
application submitted in this case is dated 24 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’s military service records show that he enlisted in the
Regular Army (RA) and entered active duty on 23 October 1962 for a period
of 3 years.  He was trained in, awarded, and served in military
occupational specialty (MOS) 71N (Movement Specialist).   The applicant
served 11 months in Vietnam, from 20 April 1963 to 19 March 1964.  On 22
October 1965, he was honorably separated from active duty after completing
3 years of net active service and he transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve.

4.  On 17 January 1966, the applicant enlisted in the RA for a period of 6
years in MOS 71N.  He served 35 months in Germany, from 6 March 1966 to 14
February 1969, and was later assigned to Vietnam where he served for 12
months, from
2 February 1971 to 18 February 1972.  The applicant attained the rank of
sergeant/pay grade E-5 and was honorably discharged on 14 January 1972 for
the purpose of his immediate reenlistment.

5.  On 15 January 1972, while assigned overseas in Vietnam, the applicant
reenlisted for a period of 3 years.  He departed Vietnam on 18 February
1972, was returned to the continental United States, and assigned to
Company A,
U.S. Army Training Center, Fort Ord, California.

6.  On 16 August 1974, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment for,
on or about 14 August 1974, being found drunk on duty as Charge of Quarters
(CQ) Runner.  The punishment imposed was a reduction to pay grade E-3,
detention of $75.00 for a period of 30 days, and 7 days extra duty.

7.  On 27 January 1975, the applicant received a Bar to Reenlistment
Certificate. The bar to reenlistment was based on the applicant’s
indebtedness, failure to comply with instructions and perform duties, and
his lack of response to counseling.  The applicant was advised of the basis
for the action, but did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

8.  The applicant's military service records contain a copy of
Headquarters,
U.S. Army Military Personnel Center, Enlisted Personnel Management
Directorate, Alexandria, Virginia, letter, dated 14 March 1975.  This
document shows that the applicant's Official Military Personnel File was
reviewed by a Department of the Army Promotion Board and it was determined
the applicant be barred from reenlistment.

9.  On 21 February 1975, the applicant was convicted at a special-court
martial convened by Headquarters, United States Army Training Center and
Fort Ord, Fort Ord, California, for, on or about 1430 hours, 15 August
1974, willfully disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned
officer and for, on or about 1255 hours, 6 November 1974, committing an
assault upon a female Soldier.  The applicant pled guilty to the charges
and specifications and was found guilty of all charges and specifications.
His punishment was to be reduced to the grade of E-1, be confined at hard
labor for 6 months, and to forfeit $229.00 pay per month for 6 months.  On
28 March 1975, the approving authority approved only so much of the
sentence as provided for reduction to the grade of E-1, confinement at hard
labor for 2 months, and forfeiture of $229.00 pay per month for 2 months.
10.  The applicant's military service records contain a DA Form 20
(Enlisted Qualification Record).  Item 44 (Time Lost Under Section 972,
Title 10, United States Code (USC) and Subsequent to Normal Date of
Expiration of Term of Service) shows that the applicant was imprisoned from
6 November 1974 to
17 November 1974 and from 21 February 1975 to 9 April 1975; for a total of
60 days lost time.

11.  On 10 April 1975, the applicant was discharged from the U.S. Army.
The
DD Form 214 he was issued confirms that the applicant had 60 days lost
under Title 10, USC, Section 972, and that he was retained in service 26
days for the convenience of the government.  The applicant's DD Form 214
also shows that he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, Chapter 2, Section VI, and that he received a General Discharge
Certificate under honorable conditions.

12.  There is no evidence showing the applicant applied to the Army
Discharge Review Board requesting a change with respect to the character of
service of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel),
in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of
enlisted personnel.  Chapter 2, Section VI of that regulation provides the
authority to order separation and accomplish separation upon expiration of
term of service and states, in pertinent part, separation will be
accomplished by the transfer facility processing the member for separation.
 Paragraph 1-7 of that Army regulation also provides, in pertinent part,
that the evaluation of an individual's service and conduct will be based on
his overall period of current service.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable
discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is
appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’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.  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 contends, in effect, his service to this country warrants
an honorable discharge and that since his discharge from the Army he has
changed his life and contributes to society in a positive way.  The
applicant’s contention was carefully considered; however, he provides
insufficient evidence to support his claim.

2.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was properly and
equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the
time.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, it is determined that all
requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the
applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  During the period of service under review, the applicant’s military
service record shows instances of being drunk on duty, indebtedness,
failure to comply with instructions and perform duties, lack of response to
counseling, willfully disobeying a lawful order from a superior
noncommissioned officer, and assault upon a female Soldier.  Thus, the
evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant's overall quality of
service during the period of service under review was not sufficiently
meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge, which is a discharge that is
issued to a Soldier who generally has met the standards of acceptable
conduct and performance for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant is
not entitled to an honorable discharge.

4.  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.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 10 April 1975; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 9 April 1978.  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

___RTD _  ___DED_  ___LWR_  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 T. Dunbar____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060006968                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061207                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19750410                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, Chapter 2, Section VI       |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000.0000                           |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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