RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        23 August 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070004564


      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. Deyon D. Battle               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |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 to an honorable or a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he was 19 years old and made stupid mistakes
and for this he is sorry.  He states that after 20 years and only a few
months of service, he wants to make something better of the time he spent
on active duty.  He states that his dad was deathly ill and that he went to
his father at his mother's request.

3.  The applicant provides in support of his application, a statement from
his mother dated 14 September 2001, indicating that she may have influenced
him about being away from home while he was in the service.

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.  On 18 October 1990, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 4
years, in the pay grade of E-2.  He successfully completed his training as
an infantryman.

3.  The applicant absented himself without leave (AWOL) on 6 March 1991 and
he remained absent in desertion until he surrendered to military
authorities and returned to military control on 27 July 1991.

4.  On 5 August 1991, the applicant was notified that charges were pending
against him for being AWOL.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification
and, after consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for discharge
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good
of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He declined the
opportunity to submit a statement in his own behalf.
5.  The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on
14 August 1991.  Accordingly, on 3 September 1991, the applicant was
discharged under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of
Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-
martial.  He had completed only 5 months and 23 days of net active service
and he had approximately 143 days of lost time due to AWOL.

6.  On 21 March 1994, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the
applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.

7.  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
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.
Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under
other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant's contentions and the statement that he submitted in
support of his application have been noted.  However, they are not
sufficiently mitigating to warrant the relief requested.  The evidence of
record shows that he had almost as much lost time due to AWOL as he had
good time.  He has submitted no evidence that shows that he attempted to
resolve any family problems that he may have been experiencing through his
chain of command.

4.  The fact that he was "19 and made a stupid mistake" is not a sufficient
basis for granting relief in his case.  The type of discharge that he
received appropriately characterizes his overall record of service.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show 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.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__LE____  __RTD___  __JTM__  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




                                  ____    Lester Echols_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070004564                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070823                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  689  |144.7000/REQ DISCHARGE FTGOS            |
|2.  708                 |144.7100/CNDCT TRIABLE BY CM – AWOL     |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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