RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        11 January 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060008522


      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. Bernard Ingold                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald Gant                   |     |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 undesirable discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the events that led to his
discharge were based on his responses to an environment of racial bigotry
and discrimination of the most oppressive and depressive nature.  He
contends that he was just a kid and that he was subjected to an environment
of hatred and was expected to adjust to it.  He also states that his
discharge has ruined his life, that he is homeless and unemployed, and that
he does not have any health care.

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 6 August 1975.  The application submitted in this case is dated
12 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 23 September 1956.  He enlisted on 24 June
1974 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completing basic combat
training and advanced individual training in military occupational
specialty 94B (cook).

4.  On 13 January 1975, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 3 January 1975 to
8 January 1975.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra
duty.

5.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty)
shows he went AWOL from 21 February 1975 to 26 February 1975; 12 March 1975
to 31 March 1975; 6 April 1975 to 26 April 1975; 12 May 1975 to 26 May
1975;
29 May 1975 to 14 June 1975; 19 June 1975 to 28 June 1975; and from 25 July
1975 to 6 August 1975.

6.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are
not contained in the available records.  However, his  DD Form 214 shows
that he was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 6 August 1975 under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the
service.  He had served 9 months and 25 days of creditable active service
with 107 days of lost time due to AWOL.

7.  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.

8.  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.  At the time, an undesirable
discharge was normally considered appropriate.

9.  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.

10.  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.  Age is not a sufficiently mitigating factor.  Although the applicant
was not quite 18 years old when he enlisted, he successfully completed
basic combat training and advanced individual training.

2.  There is no evidence of record which shows that he was a victim of
racial discrimination.

3.  There is no evidence the applicant sought assistance from his chain of
command or chaplain on a way to resolve his problems within established
Army procedures.
4.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that
the applicant’s separation was administratively correct and in conformance
with applicable regulations.  Without having the discharge packet to
consider, it is presumed his characterization of service was commensurate
with his overall record of service.  As a result, there is no basis for
granting the applicant's request.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 6 August 1975; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 5
August 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

BI_____  __RG____  __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.



                                  ____Bernard Ingold____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060008522                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070111                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19750806                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 Chapter 10                   |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |For the good of the service             |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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