RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        15 March 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060011870


      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. Gerard W. Schwartz            |     |Acting Director      |
|     |Ms. Loretta D. Gulley             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Margaret K. Patterson         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Larry W. Racster              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Rodney E. Barber              |     |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 upgrade to an
honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he experienced personal problems
during his military career that resulted in him receiving an undesirable
discharge.

3.  The applicant provided no additional documents in support of this
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 17 December 1964.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 5 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 in the Army on 28 January 1964 for a period of
3 years.  He completed basic and advanced individual training and was
awarded the military occupational specialty 111.07 (Light Weapons
Infantryman).  The highest grade he attained was Private, pay grade E-2.

4.  On 1 September 1964, the applicant was convicted by special court-
martial of three specifications of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 2
May to 15 June 1964, from 11 to 15 June 1964, and from 10 July to 1
September 1964.  He was sentenced to a reduction to pay grade E-1,
confinement at hard labor for
6 months, and a forfeiture of $55.00 pay per month for 6 months.

5.  The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge
proceedings are not in his Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ).
However, the MPRJ does contain a separation document (DD Form 214) that
contains the authority and reason for the applicant’s discharge.  The
applicant authenticated
this discharge document with his signature indicating he was discharged
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 and issued an Undesirable
Discharge Certificate.
6.  On 30 June 1964, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-208 and he was furnished an Undesirable Discharge
Certificate.  The separation document he was issued at the time of
discharge confirms that he had completed a total of 3 months and 16 days of
creditable active military service with 214 days of lost time due to AWOL.

7.  Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, set forth the basic policy for
the separation of enlisted personnel.  It provided for the separation of
members for unfitness based on frequent incidents of discreditable service.
 Action to separate an individual was to be taken when, in the judgment of
the commander, it was clearly established that rehabilitation was
impractical or was unlikely to produce a satisfactory Soldier.  When
separation for misconduct is warranted, an undesirable discharge is
considered appropriate.

8.  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. 

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. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 

1.  The applicant contends that his undesirable discharge should be
upgraded.

2.  The applicant contends that he was experiencing personnel problems.
However, there is no evidence nor did he submit any evidence that indicates
that the applicant was experiencing personnel problems that would have
prohibited him from successfully completing his military service.

3.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant's trial by court-martial
was warranted by the gravity of the offenses for which he was charged.
Conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law
and regulations,
and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he
was convicted.  The applicant's rights were protected throughout the court-
martial process.

4.  The applicant's record shows that he was charged with three counts of
AWOL.  For these offenses, the applicant was tried and convicted by special
court-martial in September 1964.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 17 December 1964; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
16 December 1967.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of
limitations; based on the available evidence, it would not 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 
___MKP_  __LWR__   __REB __  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.




                                         _Margaret K. Patterson_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060011870                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/03/15                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |MR. SCHWARTZ                            |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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