RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         24 January 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050007162


      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.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Judy L. Blanchard             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald D. Gant                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Rowland C. Heflin             |     |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 discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge is unjust because
he changed his behavior, his life, and he believes in God.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or
injustice, which occurred on 17 September 1975.  The application submitted
in this case is dated 12 May 2005.

2.  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 allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant’s record shows that he was inducted into the Army of the
United States on 26 June 1972.  He completed the required training and was
awarded military occupational specialty 36C10 (Lineman).  On 18 June 1974,
the applicant reenlisted for 6 years, after serving 1 year, 11 months, and
21 days of honorable active service.  The highest grade attained was pay
grade E-4.

4.  On 29 July 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the
applicant for being absent without leave from 30 September 1974 to 28 July
1975.

5.  On the same day, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was
advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, the effects of
an undesirable discharge (UD), characterized as under other than honorable
conditions, and of the rights available to him.  The applicant voluntarily
requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-
martial.  In his request for discharge, he acknowledged that he was guilty
of the charge against him or of a lesser-included offense therein contained
which also authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable
discharge.  He further stated that under no circumstances did he desire
further rehabilitation, for he had no desire to perform further military
service.  He also stated his understanding that if his discharge request
was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he
could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA), and that he could be deprived of his rights and
benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He further
indicated that he understood that he could encounter substantial prejudice
in civilian life by reason of an UD.  The applicant elected not to make a
statement in his own behalf.

6.  On 22 August 1975, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
request for discharge, directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlistment
grade, and that he be discharged for the good of service under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10 with an Undesirable
Discharge Certificate.  On
17 September 1975, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The
separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued confirms he completed a
total of
2 years, 3 months, and 11 day of creditable active military service and 340
days of time lost.

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 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.
An undesirable discharge is normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s good character and post service conduct were carefully
considered.  However, although his post service conduct is admirable, this
factor alone is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his
discharge.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was charged with the
commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive
discharge. The applicant was advised by his counsel on the ramification of
the charges against him and the possible maximum punishment.  After
consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily and in writing,
requested a discharge for the good of service, in lieu of trial by court-
martial.  In doing so, the applicant admitted to the offenses for which he
was charged.  All requirements were met, the rights of the applicant were
fully protected throughout the separation process and his discharge
accurately reflects his overall record of service.  There is no evidence in
his military record that shows that his rights were violated during his
discharge process.
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.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 17 September 1975; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
16 September 1978.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of
limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to
show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to
timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___PHM _  _ _RDG_  __RCH __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




                                  _____Patrick H. McGann____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050007162                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/01/24                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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