RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        12 December 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060007597


      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. Allen L. Raub                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Frank C. Jones                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Qawiy A. Sabree               |     |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 discharge be upgraded to an
honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was only 21 years of age, far
away from home, and told to plead guilty to charges filed against him,
which resulted in him being discharged under other than honorable
conditions.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 27 June 1983, the date of his discharge.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 24 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’s military service records show he enlisted in the U.S.
Army Reserve on 25 January 1980 and entered active duty in the Regular Army
on
29 April 1980 for a period of 3 years.  At the time of his entry on active
duty the applicant was 18 years old.  Upon completion of basic combat
training and advanced individual training, the applicant was awarded
military occupational specialty (MOS) 76W (Petroleum Supply Specialist).

4.  On 6 March 1981, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment for, on
or about 26 January 1981, wrongfully having in his possession marijuana.
This was a violation of Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice.  The punishment imposed was a forfeiture of $279 per month for 1
month, suspended until 20 May 1981 and correctional custody for 21 days, 14
days suspended for 90 days.

5.  The applicant's military service records show that he served 15 months
in Germany from 21 March 1982 to 26 June 1983.

6.  The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s
administrative separation proceedings are not in his Official Military
Personnel File (OMPF).  However, the OPMF does contain a discharge document
(DD Form 214) that contains the separation authority, reason for
separation, and character of service. The applicant authenticated this
document with his signature indicating that he was discharged under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, the reason for
separation was for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial, and
the character of service was under other than honorable conditions.

7.  On 27 June 1983, the applicant was discharged in the rank of
private/pay grade E-1, under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200,
Chapter 10, for the good of service with an Under Other Than Honorable
Conditions Discharge Certificate.  At the time of his discharge the
applicant was 21 years old and had completed 3 years, 1 month, and 29 days
of net active service during this period.

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

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Separations),
in effect at the time, 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, the separation authority may direct a general discharge
certificate, if such is merited by the member's overall record during the
current enlistment.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7c, provides that a discharge
under other than honorable conditions is an administrative separation from
the service under conditions other than honorable.  It may be issued for
misconduct, fraudulent entry, homosexuality, security reasons, or for the
good of the service.

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 contends that his discharge should be upgraded because he
was only 21 years of age, far away from home, and told to plead guilty to
charges filed against him, which resulted in him being discharged under
other than honorable conditions.  The applicant's contentions were
carefully considered and found to have insufficient merit in this case.

2.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was 18 years old when
he entered active duty and was over 21 years of age when his voluntary
request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
Chapter 10, was approved.  There is no evidence that the applicant was
coerced into submitting his voluntary request for discharge for the good of
the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In addition, there is no
evidence that indicates the applicant was any less mature than other
Soldiers of the same age who served overseas in Germany and successfully
completed their military service commitment.

3.  During the period of service under review, the applicant’s military
service records show that on one occasion he wrongfully had in his
possession marijuana and that he voluntarily requested discharge for the
good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial.  Thus, the evidence of
record clearly shows that the applicant's overall quality of service during
the period of service under review was not satisfactory.  Therefore, the
applicant is not entitled to a general discharge under honorable
conditions.

4.  There is a presumption of administrative regularity in the conduct of
governmental affairs.  This presumption can be applied to any review unless
there is substantial creditable evidence to rebut the presumption.
Therefore, since there is no evidence of record to show that the
applicant's under other than honorable conditions discharge under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 was not in accordance with the Army
regulatory guidance in effect at the time, there is no basis to change his
discharge.

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 27 June 1983; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
26 June 1986.  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

___ALR__  ___FCJ__  ___QAS_  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.




                                               Allen L. Raub_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060007597                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061212                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19830627                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, Chapter 10                  |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |For the Good of the Service - In Lieu of|
|                        |CM                                      |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000.0000                           |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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