IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 November 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150004222 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests upgrade of his discharge. 2. The applicant states there was no error or injustice. He was a stupid immature boy that made some of the worst decisions of his life by going absent without leave (AWOL). He hopes the discharge will be upgraded so that his children will not always look upon him as a complete failure. 3. The applicant provides no documents to support his request. 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 July 1967, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army at the age of 18 years and 19 days. He was AWOL during the periods 21-22 July, 11-25 August 1967, and 24 October-6 December 1967. He never completed any training. 3. On 10 October 1967 and 2 January 1968, he was convicted by special courts-martial of AWOL offenses. 4. He was informed on 16 January 1968 that he was being recommended for separation for unfitness based on his record of two court-martial convictions. He consulted with counsel and waived his rights to appear before and have his case be considered by a board of officers, to submit statements in his own behalf and, to be represented by counsel. 5. A 19 January 1968, physical examination found him qualified for discharge and a 23 January 1968 psychiatric evaluation found the applicant mentally responsible, that he could distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings. 6. He was recommended for separation with an undesirable discharge, the intermediate commander recommended approval and the separation authority so directed. 7. On 1 March 1968, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability) for frequent incidents of a discreditable nature. He had 14 days of creditable service and 214 days lost time. 8. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board. 9. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability. Paragraph 6a stated an individual was subject to separation for unfitness for one or more conditions including frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. When separation for unfitness was warranted, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. 10. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 3-7a states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service. 2. 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.  3. In view of the foregoing there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____x____ ___x_____ ____x__ 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. _______ _ _x______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150004222 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150004222 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1