RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        23 October 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070007415


      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. Hubert O. Fry                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. William Blakely               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |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 under other than honorable
conditions be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states that there is no error in his discharge.  He is
only asking for an upgrade so he may obtain medical benefits and any other
benefits he might be entitled to.  Because his enlistment was over 6
months, he wants to utilize the medical treatment the Department of
Veterans Affairs has to offer.  Not being able to adjust to military life
has caused him a lot of problems since his discharge.

3.  The applicant provides a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of
Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States).

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 7 February 1972.

3.  On 16 March 1972, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave
(AWOL) from on or about 2 March 1972 to on or about 6 March 1972.

4.  On 12 June 1972, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial
of being AWOL from on or about 1 May 1972 to on or about 8 June 1972.  His
punishment was to be confined at hard labor for 30 days and to forfeit
$192.00 pay per month for one month.

5.  The applicant departed AWOL on or about 10 July 1972 and returned to
military control on or about 5 November 1972.

6.  On 14 November 1972, the applicant completed a separation physical and
was found qualified for separation.

7.  The applicant’s discharge packet is not available.

8.  On 8 December 1972, 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 a characterization of service of under other than
honorable conditions.  He had completed 4 months and 7 days of creditable
active service and had 175 days of lost time.

9.  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.

10.  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, or is
otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly
inappropriate.

11.  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.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary (and the applicant
acknowledged that there was no error in his discharge), it is presumed that
the applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of
Army Regulation       635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to
avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in
conformance with applicable regulations.

2.  Discharges are not upgraded solely to entitle an individual to veterans
benefits.  Considering the quality of the applicant’s service during his
short time in the Army, there is insufficient evidence that would warrant
upgrading his discharge.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__hof___  __wb____  __mjf___  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.




                                  __Hubert O. Fry_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070007415                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20071023YYYYMMDD                        |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19721208                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |A70.00                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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