RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        27 September 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070008893


      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. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Chester A. Damian             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Edward E. Montgomery          |     |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 discharge.

2.  The applicant states that more than 20 years have passed and that he
has had to live with the mistake that he made.  He states that his mistake
resulted in his being separated from the Army under other than honorable
conditions.  He states that when you are a young man, you don’t realize the
ramifications of your actions; and that he has been haunted by his actions
over the years.  He states that his grandfather was dying and he requested
leave to go home.  He states that it was not in time of war and that he had
been a good Soldier up until that point in his career.  He concludes by
stating that he was very proud to be a member of the Army; that he would be
very appreciative to have an upgrade of his discharge to honorable; and
that he has suffered for the past 20 years for his mistake.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation 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.  On 5 February 1986, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army in
Brooklyn, New York, for 4 years, in the pay grade of E-3.  He successfully
completed his training as an infantryman.  He was promoted to the pay grade
of E-4 on 5 June 1986.

3.  The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 14 October 1986 and
he remained absent in desertion until he surrendered to military
authorities and returned to military control on 17 November 1986.

4.  At the time that the applicant returned to military control, he was
interviewed.  During the interview, he stated that he was always physically
and mentally drained from being away from his loved ones.  He stated that
he hurt himself in an accident and that he was never able to recuperate
from his injured leg.  He stated that it was impossible for him to keep up
with everyone else; that he was being humiliated; that he had been on
profile after profile with no real medical help; and that he was at his
wits end.  The applicant stated that he had a college degree and that he
could not see himself "waste away for his term."

5.  The applicant continued his interview by contending that he got jerked
around regarding Officer Candidate School; that his recruiter did not
explain things to him correctly; that his being away from home was having a
terrible effect on his family and was also dangerous to his elderly sick
grandfather; and that he was being treated worse each day that he remained
in the Army.  The applicant stated that he just wanted to leave the Army
and try to put his mind and body back to a normal state.  He concluded by
stating that his leg would get weak and that he was having hot and cold
flashes and back pain.  He stated that after many visits to the doctor,
nothing was helping the pain.

6.  On 19 November 1986, 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.  At the time
that he submitted his request for discharge, he acknowledged that he
understood that if his request for discharge was accepted, he may be
discharged under conditions other than honorable.  The applicant opted not
to submit a statement in his own behalf.

7.  The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 9
December 1986 and he directed the issuance of a discharge under other than
honorable conditions.  Accordingly, on 29 December 1986, 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 9 months and 21 days of net
active service and he had approximately 1 month and 3 days of lost time due
to AWOL.

8.  A review of the available records fails to show that the applicant ever
applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge
within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.


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
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 that he was young and that he has lived
with his mistakes have been noted.  The fact that his grandfather was ill
and that 20 years have passed since he was in the Army has also been noted.
 However, none of these factors, either individually or in sum, warrant the
relief requested.

4.  The evidence of record indicates that he went AWOL after being in the
Army for only 8 months and he later decided that he no longer had a desire
to be in the Army.  He submitted his request for discharge for the good of
the service in lieu of trial by court-martial and the appropriate authority
approved his request.  He acknowledged that he understood that if his
request for discharge was accepted, he may be discharged under conditions
other than honorable.  Considering the nature of his offense, it does not
appear that the characterization of his service is too harsh.

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

__RTD___  __CAD__  __EEM__  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.




                                  ___Richard T. Dunbar____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070008893                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070927                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  689  |144.7000/REQ FOR DISCHRGE FTGOS         |
|2.  261                 |123.0000/AWOL/DESERTION                 |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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