RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        22 March 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060013243


      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. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Roland S. Venable             |     |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 discharge be corrected.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was enroute to his new duty
assignment and his orders were to a non-existent unit so he received new
assignment orders in a different part of the country.  He also states, in
effect, that his pay records never arrived.  He further states, in effect,
that he was late for an alert which resulted in his being restricted to
base for 2 weeks but his wife had no where to stay so he had to leave the
base.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 21 August 1975, the date of his discharge from active
duty.  The application submitted in this case is dated 6 September 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 limitation 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 Regular Army on 13 January 1972, for a
period of 3 years.  He completed the required training and was awarded
military occupational specialty 62J (General Construction Machine
Operator).  The highest rank he attained while serving on this active duty
tour was Private First Class (PFC), pay grade E-3.

4.  On 30 January 1973, the applicant was honorably discharged for the
convenience of the government and immediately reenlisted on 31 January
1973. The highest rank he attained while serving on this active duty tour
was Specialist Four (SP4), pay grade E-4.

5.  The applicant's record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement or service warranting special recognition.

6.  On 9 January 1974, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
for causing damages in the amount of $12.00, having in his possession a
knife with a blade in excess of 3 inches, and being drunk and disorderly.
His imposed punishment was reduction in grade to Private First Class (PFC),
(suspended for 30 days); and forfeiture of $40.00.

7.  On 21 July 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the
applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) during the period of 10
June 1975 to
15 July 1975.

8.  On 18 July 1975, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was
advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the
maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible
effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the
procedures and rights that were available to him.  Subsequent to receiving
this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the
good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

9.  On 4 August 1975, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
request for discharge and directed that he receive a discharge under
honorable conditions (general).  On 21 August 1975, the applicant was
discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he
completed a total of 3 years, 6 months, and 2 days of creditable active
military service and that he accrued 38 days of time lost due to AWOL.

10.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army
Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 5-year
statute of limitations.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) 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 trail by court-
martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally
considered appropriate.

12.  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.

13.  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
experienced numerous problems during his PCS move, encountered pay
problems, and his wife had no place to live while he was on restriction
which resulted in him leaving the base.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the
commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive
discharge. After consulting with defense counsel, he voluntarily requested
discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All
requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant
were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the
applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

3.  Based on this record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly
does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty
for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable
discharge.

4.  Evidence shows the applicant’s administrative separation was
accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations and there is no
indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.
The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and
regulations applicable at the time and the
character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall
record of military service.

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

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 21 August 1975.  Therefore, the time
for him to file a request for correction on any error or injustice expired
on 20 August 1978.  However, he 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

___LDS__  ___JTM_  ___RSV _  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 appear in the interest of justice to
excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file this application within the 3-
year statue of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, this insufficient
basis to waive the statue of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




                                        _Linda D. Simmons_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON






                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060013243                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/03/22                              |
|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]