RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        25 September 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070006293


      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.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he needs help, because he is
unable to work.  He cannot hold a job and he needs income and a place to
stay.  He is homeless and is getting no financial help.  He adds that when
he was in the Army it was a very, very hard time for him because of his
mental instability at the time.  He could not stand pressure and he could
not take instructions well.  The applicant states, that he has papers to
back up his condition.  He is getting treatment from Red Cross mental
facility.

3.  The applicant provides a document from the North Rock Medication Clinic
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 enlisted in the Regular Army on
31 August 1972, for a period of 3 years.  He completed the required
training and was awarded Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 11B (Light
Weapons Infantryman).  The highest grade he attained was pay grade E-3.

3.  On 20 August 1973, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 13 to 14 August 1973.  His
imposed punishment was an oral reprimand, 7 days restriction, and 7 days
extra duty.

4.  On 1 October 1973, the applicant accepted NJP for leaving without
authority his appointed place of duty.  His imposed punishment was 14 days
restriction.

5.  On 28 February 1974, the applicant was convicted by a Summary Court-
Martial of being AWOL from 21 to 28 January 1974.  He was sentenced to a
reduction to pay grade E-2, a forfeiture of $235.00 pay and 45 days
restriction.

6.  On 11 March 1974, the applicant accepted NJP for being disrespectful in
language toward his superior noncommissioned officer.  His imposed
punishment was a forfeiture of $100.00 pay, 30 days restriction and 30 days
extra duty.

7.  On 4 June 1974, the applicant was convicted by a Special Court-Martial
of being AWOL from 29 March to 27 April 1974.  He was sentenced to a
reduction to pay grade E-1 and confinement at hard labor for a period of 2
months

8.  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
shows the authority and reason for the applicant’s discharge.  The
applicant authenticated this document with his signature indicating he was
discharged on 23 July 1974, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-
200, chapter 13, with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  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, 6 months and 12 days of creditable active military service and a
total 131 days lost due to AWOLs and confinement.

9.  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
statute of limitations.

10.  Chapter 13, of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations, applied
to separation for unfitness.  The regulation requires that separation
action will be taken when, in the commander’s judgment, the individual will
not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further military
training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.

11.  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.

12.  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 in effect, that his discharge should be upgraded
because he was suffering from a medical condition that impaired his ability
to serve.  The contentions of the applicant were carefully considered and
found to be insufficient in merit.

2.  The applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) contains no
medical records nor does the applicant provide any medical documents that
indicate he was treated for or suffered from a psychologically or medically
disqualifying condition while he was on active duty, or at the time of his
discharge.

3.  Although, the applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and
circumstances surrounding his discharge processing; it does contain a
properly constituted DD Form 214 that identifies the reason and
characterization of the applicant’s discharge and the applicant
authenticated this document with his signature.

4.  After carefully evaluating the available 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.

5.  The evidence of record also reveals that the applicant had an extensive
disciplinary history of military infractions which ultimately led to his
discharge.  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, given the circumstances in this
case, there is insufficient evidence to grant his request.

6.  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]