RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  1 March 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060011383 


	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. Thomas Ray

Chairperson

Mr. Jeffrey Redmann

Member

Mr. James Hastie

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 to a general discharge. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his combat service in Vietnam changed him and caused him to do things that he normally would not have done (drink alcohol and smoke marijuana).

3.  The applicant provides a letter, dated 6 March 2006, from a retired psychiatric social worker; a letter, dated 3 March 2006, from his wife; and a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge). 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which occurred on 4 March 1971.  The application submitted in this case is dated 4 August 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 enlisted on 22 October 1968 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completing basic combat training and advanced individual training in military occupational specialty 67A (aircraft maintenance).  He served as a helicopter mechanic in Vietnam from 18 April 1969 through 10 April 1970. 

4.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not contained in the available records.  However, a DA Form 268 (Report for Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions), dated 31 October 1970, shows that on 12 November 1970 charges were preferred against the applicant for possession of marijuana and attempting to sell marijuana and trial by special court-martial was recommended. 

5.  On 24 February 1971, the applicant underwent a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111111.

6.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged with an undesirable discharge on 4 March 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served 2 years, 4 months, and 13 days of creditable active service.

7.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant was diagnosed with alcohol or drug abuse or dependency.

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 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. 

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.  The applicant’s claim that his combat service in Vietnam changed him and caused him to do things that he normally would not have done (drink alcohol and smoke marijuana) does not provide a sufficient basis for upgrading his discharge. There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant was diagnosed with alcohol or drug abuse or dependency.  Medical evidence of record shows that he was found qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111111.  There is no evidence of record to show the applicant sought assistance from his chain of command or chaplain on a way to resolve his problems within established Army procedures.     

2.  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.

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice now under consideration on 4 March 1971; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 3 March 1974.  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

TR____  __JR_____  _JH_____  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.


__Thomas Ray______________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060011383
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20070301
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE
19710304
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.