RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        21 February 2008
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070012325


      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             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Margaret K. Patterson         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Sherri V. Ward                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann            |     |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 general, under honorable
conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge (HD).


2.  The applicant states, in effect, that in April 1971, he returned from
the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) and was assigned to Fort Riley, Kansas.  He
states that upon returning to Fort Riley after a 30 day leave, he was
informed that he would be leaving for Germany in 3 weeks.  However, 1 week
later, he went to the hospital and was diagnosed with Hepatitis, and was
quarantined for 45 days.  He states that 2 weeks later, he left because he
was scared.  He states that he returned to Fort Riley in August 1971, and
left again because the doctors were doing nothing for him.  He states that
in 1972, he received a dishonorable discharge, which after years he was
able to get upgraded to a GD.  He states that in 1984, he entered the
hospital and the doctor told him he had Hepatitis C for many years, which
he claims to have contracted in the RVN in 1971.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement, separation document
(DD Form 214), and third-party statement in support of 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’s military records are not available to the Board.  This
case is being considered using reconstructed records, which primarily
consist of the applicant's DD Form 214.

3.  A separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances
surrounding the applicant's separation processing is not on file and was
not provided by the applicant.
4.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 30 September 1969.  It also shows he was awarded and
held the military occupational specialty (MOS) 64C (Truckmaster), and that
he held the rank of private/E-2 (PV2) on the date of his discharge.  It
further confirms he was separated with a GD on 13 October 1972, after
completing
2 years, 3 months and 6 days of creditable active military service, and
accruing 272 days of time lost during six separate periods between 10
February 1971 and 7 August 1972.

5.  The applicant's separation document also shows that he served in the
RVN from 23 March 1970 through 26 April 1971, and that he earned the
National Defense Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Vietnam Service
Medal, and RVN Campaign Medal with 60 Device.

6.  The copy of the DD Form 214 made available to the Board does not
specifically identify the authority and reason for the applicant's
separation, and the applicant has failed to provide this information with
his application.

7.  The applicant provides a third-party statement from an individual who
states he has known the applicant and his family for about 30 years.  He
states the applicant is a very caring and understanding person who also
used to baby sit for him sometimes.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that the reason for his repeated
unauthorized absences was that he was afraid after he had been diagnosed
with Hepatitis and the doctors were not doing anything for him, and the
third-party statement he provided attesting to his good character, were
carefully considered.  However, although his good post service character is
noteworthy, these factors are not sufficiently mitigating to support an
upgrade of his discharge at this late date.

2.  The available evidence does not include a separation packet containing
the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's separation
processing.  However, there is a properly constituted DD Form 214 on file
that confirms he received a GD on 13 October 1972, and this document
carries with it a presumption of regularity.  The DD Form 214 confirms  the
applicant accrued 272 days of time lost, which clearly diminished the
overall quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable
discharge.  As a result, absent any evidence of any error or injustice
related to his separation processing, there is an insufficient evidentiary
basis to support granting the requested relief in this case.

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

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__MKP __  __SVW  _  __JCR__  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.




                                  _____Margaret K. Patterson___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070012325                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2008/02/                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1972/10/13                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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