RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        18 NOVEMBER 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004104293


      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. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Hise                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Hubert Fry                    |     |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 honorable conditions be
upgraded to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his medical history and
depression was the reason he was discharged.  In his application he
referred to a “letter” but no letter was included with his application.

3.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 29 June 1981.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
13 February 2004.

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 limitation 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.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant was a member
of the Illinois Army National Guard in May 1979 when his commander
requested that orders be issued ordering the applicant to active duty for
“unsatisfactory participation” after accumulating 5 unexcused absences
within a one-year period.

4.  Orders were apparently issued directing that the applicant report for
active duty on 18 October 1979.  He failed to report and was carried in an
AWOL (absent without leave) status until November 1980.  He reported for
and entered active duty on 24 November 1980.

5.  Documents in the applicant’s file indicate that he was found “not
guilty” of the AWOL period.

6.  On 22 June 1981 the applicant was punished under Article 15 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice for being AWOL between 4 May and 21 May
1981 and


for disobeying an order to put on his uniform and report to work.  His
punishment included forfeiture.

7.  On 24 June 1981 the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to
administratively separate the applicant from active duty under the
provisions of Chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200 (Expeditious Discharge
Program).  The commander cited the applicant’s poor attitude, lack of
motivation, and lack of self-discipline as the basis for his recommendation
and recommended that the applicant receive a general discharge.  Statements
included with the recommendation noted that the applicant adamantly refused
to respect authority of any kind and was rebellious in nature.  They
indicated that the applicant’s disruptive behavior and consistent bad
conduct precluded his ability to function in any military environment or
endeavor.

8.  The applicant consulted with counsel and acknowledged receipt of the
propose separation action.  He did not submit any statements in his own
behalf.

9.  The commander’s recommendation was approved and on 29 June 1981 the
applicant was discharged under honorable conditions.

10.  There were no medical records available to the Board or provided by
the applicant.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides the policy and sets forth the
procedure for administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5,
as then in effect, provided, in pertinent part, for the Expeditious
Discharge Program (EDP).  This program provided that an individual who had
completed at least 6 months, but less than 36 months of active duty and who
demonstrated (by poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-
discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally or
failure to demonstrate promotion potential) that they could not or would
not meet acceptable standards could be separated.  Such personnel were
issued a general or honorable discharge, as appropriate.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 also states that an honorable discharge is a
separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when
the quality of the soldier’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.




DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, which
shows that he had any medical problems or that his “depression” was the
basis for his administrative separation.  The applicant was given an
opportunity to raise any issues he deemed appropriate during his separation
processing and elected not to make any statements in own behalf.

2.  The applicant’s characterization of service as under honorable
conditions was appropriate given the nature of his short military service
and his conduct during that period.

3.  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 that requirement.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 29 June 1981; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
28 June 1984.  However, 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

___JH___  ___LE __  ___HF __  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.




                                  ______ James Hise__________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004104293                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041118                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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