RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        19 December 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060008548


      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. Joyce A. Wright               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Kathleen Newman               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Paul M. Smith                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. John M. Moeller               |     |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 undesirable discharge (UD),
characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), be
upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his UD should be upgraded.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the
United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 4 October 1972, the date of his discharge.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 16 June 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 record shows he enlisted under the Delayed Entry
Program (DEP) on 6 August 1969.  He entered active duty on 10 October 1969.
 The applicant successfully completed basic combat training at Fort Gordon,
Georgia, and advanced individual training at Fort Rucker, Alabama.  On
completion of his advanced training, he was awarded the military
occupational specialty (MOS), 67N, UH-1 Helicopter Repairman.   He was
promoted to specialist five (SP5/E-5) effective 15 February 1971.

4.  On 21 May 1987, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent without leave (AWOL).  His
punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 14 days restriction and
extra duty.

5.  Item 44 (Time Lost), of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record),
shows that he was AWOL from 1 July to 11 July 1971, from 21 August 1971 to
6 February 1972 (170 days), and from 17 February 1972 to 12 September 1972
(205 days). 

6.  All the documents containing the facts and circumstances surrounding
the applicant's discharge are not present in the available records. 
However, the applicant submitted a copy of his DD Form 214 which shows that
on 4 October 1972, he was discharged under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of
trial by court-martial.  He was furnished an undesirable discharge, in the
pay grade of E-1.  He had a total of 1 year, 11 months, and 2 days of
creditable service and 389 days of lost time due to AWOL. 

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

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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.

9.  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.

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, 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.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes
Government regularity and believes that the applicant's administrative
separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with
no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the
service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.

3.  The applicant's record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214. 
This document identifies the reason and characterization of his discharge. 


4.  It is evident, that court-martial charges were preferred against the
applicant; however, these documents are unavailable for review and the
applicant failed to provide this information to the Board. 

5.  The applicant has provided insufficient evidence to show that his
discharge was unjust.  He also has not provided evidence sufficient to
mitigate the character of his discharge.

6.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant accumulated a total of
389 days of lost time due to AWOL.  An absence of this duration is serious
and there is insufficient evidence to show that the applicant now deserves
an upgrade of his discharge.

7.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must
show, to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise appear, that
the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit
evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

8.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 4 October 1972; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 3 October 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

__JMM___  ___PMS_  __KAN__  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.




                                  ____Kathleen Newman________
                                            CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060008548                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061219                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19721004                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, chapter 10                  |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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