RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        2 November 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060007160


      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. Wanda L. Waller               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Gunlicks                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Scott Faught                  |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Edward Montgomery             |     |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 discharge under other than honorable
conditions be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states that he was young, confused, and very stupid in
his decision making that allowed him to part the service with the chapter
10.  He contends that problems in his unit and chain of command made him
feel he was being treated unjustly and he reacted impulsively and made a
bad decision.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 25 March 1988.  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 born on 16 June 1964.  He enlisted on 20 November
1985 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed basic combat
training and advanced individual training in military occupational
specialty 67Y (AH-1 attack helicopter repairer).

4.  The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 6 October 1987 and
returned to military control on 30 November 1987.  On 9 December 1987,
charges were preferred against the applicant for the AWOL period.  Trial by
special court-martial was recommended.

5.  On 9 December 1987, the applicant consulted with counsel and requested
discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He indicated in his request that he
understood he might be discharged under conditions other than honorable and
furnished an other than honorable discharge; that he might be ineligible
for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration; that
he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits; and that he might be
ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and
State law.  He also acknowledged that he might expect to encounter
substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an other than honorable
discharge.  He elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.

6.  On 25 February 1988, the separation authority approved the applicant's
request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under
other than honorable conditions.

7.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable
conditions on 25 March 1988 under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of court-martial.
 He had served 2 years, 2 months, and 10 days of total active service with
56 days of lost time due to AWOL.

8.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of
limitations.

9.  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,
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.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, 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 (emphasis
added), 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.

11.  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 was 21 years old when he enlisted and he was 23 years old
when he went AWOL.  Therefore, age is not a sufficiently mitigating factor.


2.  Although the applicant contends that problems in his unit and chain of
command made him feel he was being treated unjustly, there is no evidence
the applicant sought assistance from the Inspector General or chaplain on a
way to resolve his problems within established Army procedures.

3.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial,
was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable
regulations.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could
have voiced his concerns and he failed to do so.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

5.  Since the applicant had a 56-day AWOL offense that led to referral of a
special court-martial charge, his record of service was not satisfactory
and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of
duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is
insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge or a general
discharge.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 25 March 1988; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 24
March 1991.  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

JG_____  __SF____  _EM_____  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.




                                  ___James Gunlicks_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060007160                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061102                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19880325                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 Chapter 10                   |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |For the good of the service, in lieu of |
|                        |court-martial                           |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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