RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        25 September 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070005804


      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.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Judy L. Blanchard             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Jerome L. Pionk               |     |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 discharge be upgraded to a
discharge under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states, in effect that he was not involved in any serious
crimes and he is currently homeless.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an
applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations
if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided
in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a
substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is
granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the
applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are
insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant’s record shows that he reenlisted in the Regular Army on
3 March 1966, for a period of 6 years, after serving 1 year and 2 days of
honorable active service.  The highest grade he attained was pay grade E-3.


3.  On 15 April 1966, the applicant accepted non judicial punishment for
being absent without leave (AWOL) from 9 to 14 April 1966.  His imposed
punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2, a forfeiture of $20.00 pay, 14
days restriction and 14 days extra duty.

4.  On 23 September 1966, the applicant was convicted by a Special Court-
Martial (SPCM) of two specifications of being AWOL from 6 June to 6 July
1966 and from 8 July to 17 August 1966.  He was sentenced to confinement at
hard labor for 6 months and to forfeit $62.00 pay per month for 6 months.

5.  On 23 November 1966, the applicant was convicted by a SPCM of being
AWOL from 23 October to 9 November 1966 and for violating the conditions of
his parole by going AWOL.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor
for
6 months and to forfeit $64.00 pay per month for 6 months.
6.  On 30 August 1967, the applicant was convicted by a SPCM of being AWOL
from 2 June to 9 August 1967.  He was sentenced to a forfeiture of $64.00
pay per month for 6 months, confinement at hard labor for 6 months and a
reduction to pay grade E-1.

7.  On 13 September 1967, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation
and was found mentally responsible to distinguish right from wrong and
adhere to the right.  He was mentally competent to understand and
participate in the board proceedings.  He had no mental or physical disease
or defect sufficient to warrant discharge through medical channels and was
psychiatrically cleared for any administrative or disciplinary action.  It
was recommended that the applicant be separated from the service under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.

8.  On 14 September 1967, the applicant underwent a separation medical
examination and was found fit for retention.

9.  On 17 September 1967, the applicant was advised by his company
commander that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unfitness.  The recommendation was
based on the applicant’s three courts-martial conviction for being AWOL.

10.  On the same day, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and after
being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation, its effects and
the rights available to him, he waived his right to consideration of his
case by a board of officers, personal appearance before a board of
officers, and his right to counsel. The applicant did not submit a
statement in his own behalf.

11.  On 12 October 1967, the separation authority directed the applicant’s
discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness and
that he receive an Under Conditions Other Than Honorable Discharge
Certificate.  On 18 October 1967, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
 The DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or
Discharge) issued to him at the time, confirms the applicant completed a
total of 1 year, 4 months, and 18 days of creditable active military
service and that he accrued a total of 456 days of time lost due to AWOLs
and confinements.

12.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority, established the policy, and prescribed the procedures for
separating members for unfitness.  An undesirable discharge was normally
considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions.

13.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army
Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15
year statue of limitation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered and found to have
insufficient merit in this case.

2.  The applicant’s military record shows that he had an extensive
disciplinary history of military infraction and based on his record of
indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly shows that his discharge was
appropriate because the quality of service determined at the time of
discharge was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable
personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  Therefore,
he is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge.

3.  After carefully evaluating the evidence submitted by the applicant and
the evidence of record in this case, it is determined that the applicant’s
discharge processing was conducted in accordance with law and regulations
applicable at the time and that the character of his service is
commensurate with his overall record of military service.  The evidence of
record confirms that the applicant’s rights were fully protected throughout
the separation process.

4.  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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___WDP_  ___LMD_  ___JLP __  DENY APPLICATION






BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.





                                  ____William D. Powers_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR                                      |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/09/25                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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