RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        27 September 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070009090


      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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to an
honorable or a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states that for the past 35 years, he has had to live
with the mistakes that he made in life and now that his health has taken
the turn that it has, he would like to die with honor for the sake of his
family.  He states that the mistake that he made with the Army was 35 years
ago and that being punished for all of these years is about all one man can
take.  He states that he has kept what happened when he was in the Army to
himself for all of these years and now it is time to tell his side.  He
states that he was young, foolish, stupid, and rebellious and he did not
know what he wanted to do with his life.  He states that he quit school
when he was in the 9th grade and that he wanted to continue to sail with
his father; however, his father wanted him to return to school.  He states
that he did not return to school nor did he want to talk about returning to
school. He states that he was given papers by the Army to take home for his
parents to sign and that he slipped the papers to his father and he signed
them unknowingly.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that at the time of his enlistment in
the Army, his recruiter promised him a permanent duty station in Germany.
He states, in effect, that after being in Germany for approximately 6
months, he received orders to report to Vietnam.  He states that his first
thought was that it was a mistake until his company commander assured him
that it was not a mistake.  He states, in effect, that was granted leave to
go home prior to going to Vietnam, so he left Germany and he went home to
talk to his recruiter.  He states that he was unable to locate his
recruiter; that he believed that he had been lied to; and that he did not
know what to do; therefore, he did not report as ordered.  He states that
he tried to fix something that the Army did not believe was broken.  He
states that he talked to a priest who told him to report as ordered;
however he chose to go absent without leave (AWOL) and to remain absent
without leave (AWOL).  He states that he did not understand how serious
being AWOL was at that time; however, now he does understand.  He states
that he has lived his life with honor and pride and with a big secret as he
has told no one about his problem, believing that they would go away
someday.  He goes on to state that after having several heart attacks and
being so close to death, he had tried to right any wrongs that were done;
that he has shamed himself, which is something that he has had to live with
over the years; and that he does not want his family condemned as a result
his actions.


3.  The applicant provides in support of his application, a statement
attesting to his good post-service conduct and a newspaper article
indicating how he found the military documentation and records belonging to
a deceased veteran and how he returned the items to a family member of the
veteran.

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 19 September 1969, the applicant enlisted in the Army with parental
consent, for 3 years, in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed
his training as a light weapons infantryman.

3.  The applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 19 January 1970
and he was transferred to Germany on 6 February 1970.  He was promoted to
the pay grade of E-3 on 31 March 1970.

4.  Nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on 13 June
1970, for being derelict in the performance of his duty on 31 May 1970.
His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay in the amount of $15.00,
restriction for 10 days and extra duty for 10 days.

5.  On 11 September 1970, Special Orders Number 254 was published assigning
him to the United States Army Overseas Replacement Station, Fort Lewis,
Washington, for Vietnam orientation training and further assignment.  He
had a reporting date of 25 October 1970.

6.  The applicant was approved leave prior to his new assignment reporting
date and he returned to the Continental United States on 19 September 1970.

7.  The available records indicate that the applicant failed to report to
Fort Lewis as ordered and that he was in an AWOL status when he surrendered
to military authorities on 13 January 1971.

8.  On 24 November 1971, the applicant was notified that charges were
pending against him for being AWOL from 25 October 1970 until 14 January
1971; 2 February until 15 April 1971; and 18 June until 23 November 1971.
He acknowledged receipt of the notification on 13 March 1972 and, after
consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for discharge under the
provision 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 other than
honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

9.  The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 16
August 1972 and he directed the issuance of an undesirable discharge.
Accordingly, on 25 August 1972, the applicant was discharged under the
provision of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the
service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  His Report of Transfer or
Discharge shows that he had completed 2 years and 25 days of net active
service and that he had 315 days of lost time due to AWOL.  He was
furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

10.  On 6 May 1982 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's
petition to upgrade his discharge.

11.  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.  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.

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 foolish, stupid, and rebellious
when he was in the service and that he has regretted his behavior for the
past 35 years have been noted.  The newspaper article that he submitted in
behalf of his applications has also been considered.  However, neither of
these factors, either individually or in sum, warrant the relief requested.


4.  The evidence of record indicates that while he was in the Army he had
approximately 315 days of lost time due to AWOL.  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 other than honorable conditions and furnished an
Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  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                 |AR20070009090                           |
|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]