RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        18 October 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070007318


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John N. Slone                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. David W. Tucker               |     |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 under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states he failed to request this change within the
required time frame.

3.  The applicant states he provided evidence of a medical condition;
however; no evidence was attached to his 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 July 1972.  He
completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded
military occupational specialty 62J (General Construction Machine
Operator).

3.  On 1 November 1972, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment
under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without
leave (AWOL) from on or about 16 October to on or about 30 October 1972.

4.  On 24 November 1972, the applicant was convicted, in accordance with
his pleas, by a summary court-martial of failing to go to his appointed
place of duty and of being AWOL from on or about 5 November to on or about
15 November 1972.  He was sentenced to forfeit $150.00 pay per month for 1
month, to be restricted for 30 days, and to perform extra duty for 30 days.

5.  On 9 February 1973, the applicant was convicted, in accordance with his
plea, by a special court-martial of being AWOL from on or about 3 December
1972 to on or about 9 January 1973.  He was sentenced to be confined at
hard labor for 45 days.
6.  On 7 June 1973, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being AWOL from on or
about 4 June to on or about 6 June 1973.

7.  On 8 April 1974, court-martial charges were preferred against the
applicant charging him with being AWOL from on or about 3 December 1973 to
on           or about 3 April 1974 and from on or about 20 November to on
or about            26 November 1973.

8.  On 10 April 1974, a mental status evaluation was completed on the
applicant. The applicant was found to have no significant mental illness,
to be mentally responsible, to be able to distinguish right from wrong and
to adhere to the right, and to have the mental capacity to understand and
participate in board proceedings.

9.  On 10 April 1974, the applicant completed a separation physical and was
found qualified for separation.

10.  On 13 April 1974, after being afforded the opportunity to consult with
appointed counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the
service.  He was advised that by submitting this request for discharge he
acknowledged that he understood the elements of the offense(s) charged and
was guilty of the charge(s) against him or of (a) lesser included
offense(s) therein contained which also authorized the imposition of a bad
conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He also stated that under no
circumstances did he desire further rehabilitation for he had no desire to
perform further military service.  The applicant was advised of the effects
of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be
deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.

11.  The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf.  He stated he
was applying for a discharge because he could not adjust to the Army.  He
did not make much money to support himself and his family, so he felt he
should be discharged for the good of the Army and to better himself.

12.  On 3 May 1974, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s
request and directed he be given an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

13.  On 21 May 1974, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the
service with an undesirable discharge and a characterization of service of
under other than honorable conditions.  He had completed 1 year and 21 days
of creditable active service and had 248 days of lost time.
14.  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.
The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred
and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  A discharge under
other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided
for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

15.  On 12 October 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the
applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.

16.  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 voluntary request for separation under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, was
administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.
There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

2.  Considering the applicant’s numerous instances of AWOL and the length
of some of his AWOLs the type of discharge he was given was and still is
appropriate.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jns___  __jtm___  __dwt___  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.




                                  __John N. Slone_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070007318                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20071018                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19740521                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 ch 10                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |A70.00                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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