RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        26 February 2008
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070015351


      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:

|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. John G. Heck                  |     |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.

2.  The applicant states that he was young and immature when he was in the
Army.  He realizes he made a big mistake.  He served 18 months in Germany
and did pretty good.  The highest rank he made was E-4.  He is asking for a
little slack.

3.  The applicant provides a Department of Veterans Affairs Form 21-4138
(Statement in Support of Claim).

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 was born on 22 June 1950.  He enlisted in the Regular
Army on 31 January 1969.  He completed basic combat training and advanced
individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11E
(Armor Crewman).

3.  On 21 August 1969, the applicant was convicted by a special court-
martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 20 April 1969
to on or about 12 August 1969.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard
labor for 6 months (suspended for 6 months), and to forfeit $75.00 pay per
month for 6 months.

4.  The applicant was assigned to Germany on or about 3 February 1970.  He
was promoted to Specialist Four, E-4 on 8 June 1970.

5.  On 25 May 1971, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to go to his
appointed place of duty.

6.  On 2 February 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the
applicant charging him with being AWOL from on or about 1 July 1971 to on
or about 22 December 1971 and from on or about 26 December 1971 to on or
about 10 January 1972.

7.  On 13 January 1972, the applicant completed a mental status evaluation.
 He was found 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.

8.  On an unknown date, after consulting with legal 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 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.
 He submitted a statement in his own behalf.  Counsel, on behalf of the
applicant, stated that the applicant received word that his mother was
having financial difficulties and was having health problems that often
prevented her from working.  The applicant went home to work as a fry cook
and as a construction worker to aid his family.

9.  On 15 February 1972, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s
request and directed he be issued an undesirable discharge certificate.

10.  On 25 February 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 an undesirable discharge and a characterization of
service of under other than honorable conditions.  He had completed 2
years, 1 month, and        19 days of creditable active service and had 343
days of lost time.

11.  On 5 November 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the
applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.

12.  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.

13.  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.  The applicant was over 18 years old when he enlisted and he
successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual
training.  He had a long period of AWOL before he went to Germany for which
he received a court-martial.  He therefore knew there would be consequences
for similar misconduct. The applicant’s characterization of service appears
to be commensurate with the offenses for which he was charged and his
overall record of service.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__lds___  __lmd___  __jgh___  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.




                                  __Linda D. Simmons____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070015351                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20080226                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19720225                                |
|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]