RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         13 April 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050014118


      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             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. David K. Hassenritter         |     |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, an upgrade of his undesirable
discharge (UD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was separated with temporary
records, but served at many military bases.  He claims he has been very
supportive of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Disabled American
Veterans for several years, and he would now like to join a veteran's
organization.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 23 January 1969.  The application submitted in this case
is dated
4 September 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 enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 8 April 1964.  He was trained in and awarded
military occupational specialty (MOS) 76A (Supply Clerk), and the highest
rank he attained while serving on active duty was private first class
(PFC).

4.  The applicant’s record shows he completed an overseas tour in Korea,
and served in Germany from 21 February through 28 September 1967.  The
record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service
warranting special recognition.

5.  The applicant's record reveals a disciplinary history that includes his
acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article
15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on the following four
dates for the offenses indicated:  7 July 1964, for disobeying the lawful
order of a superior noncommissioned officer (NCO); 4 June 1965, for being
absent without authority; 8 June 1965, for breaking restriction; and 13
February 1967, for being absent without leave (AWOL) for 3 days.

6.  On  25 September 1964, a special court-martial (SPCM) convicted the
applicant of violating Article 83 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ) by committing indecent assault toward members of the opposite sex on
two separate occasions.  The resultant sentence was confinement at hard
labor for
1 month and forfeiture of $55.00 per month for 3 months.

7.  On 12 May 1966, a SPCM convicted the applicant of violating Article 86
of the UCMJ by being absent without leave (AWOL) on two separate occasions
totaling 54 days.  The resultant sentence was confinement at hard labor for
6 months and forfeiture of $62.00 per month for 6 months.

8.  On 20 December 1966, a summary court-martial (SCM) convicted the
applicant of violating Article 86 of the UCMJ by being AWOL from on or
about 9 through on or about 15 November 1966.  The resultant sentence was
confinement at hard labor for 30 days.

9.  In December 1968, the unit commander advised the applicant that he was
recommending him for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-212, by reason of unfitness.  The applicant consulted with legal
counsel and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated
separation, its effects and the rights available to him, he waived his
right to consideration of his case by a board of officers, personal
appearance before a board of officers and his right to counsel.  He further
elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.

10.  On 17 January 1969, the separation authority directed the applicant’s
separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 and that he
receive an UD.  On 23 January 1969, the applicant was discharged
accordingly.  The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to him at the
time, confirms he completed a total of 2 years, 2 months and 26 days of
creditable active military service and that he accrued a total of 1934 days
of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.
11.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army
Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's
15-year statute of limitations.

12.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority, established the policy, and prescribed the procedures for
separating members for unfitness.  An undesirable discharge was normally
considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that his discharge should be upgraded based
on his strong support for veteran's organizations was carefully considered.
 However, while admirable, this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to
warrant an upgrade of his discharge at this late date.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was notified of the
contemplated separation action by his unit commander and that he consulted
legal counsel.  It further shows that after being advised of the basis for
the contemplated separation action and its possible effects, he voluntarily
elected to waive his right to have his case considered by a board of
officers and he elected not to submit a rebuttal statement in his own
behalf.

3.  The record further confirms that all requirements of law and regulation
were met and the applicant’s rights were fully protected throughout the
separation process.  Finally, the record shows that the applicant’s
discharge accurately reflects his overall record of undistinguished
service.

4.  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.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 23 January 1969, the date of his
separation. Therefore, the time for him to file a request for correction of
any error or injustice expired on 22 January 1972.  He failed to 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

___RTD _  ___PHM_  __DKH__  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.




                                  _____Richard T. Dunbar _____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050014118                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/04/13                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1969/01/23                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-212                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unfitness                               |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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