RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          25 January 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040000053


      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. Rosa M. Chandler              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Kathleen A. Newman            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. James E. Anderhom             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |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 general discharge (GD) be
upgraded to a fully honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was discharged because he was
unable to adapt to military life.  He got along with his peers and his
record was good until he told a lieutenant that he believed he was going to
get him killed because the lieutenant could not read a grid map.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 24 September 1980.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 12 April 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.  On 16 September 1979, the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve
Delayed Entry Program (DEP) for 6 years.  On 18 October 1979, he was
discharged from the DEP and enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He
completed the training requirements and he was awarded military
occupational specialty (MOS) 64C (Motor Transport Operator).  On 8 February
1980, he was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas with duty in his MOS.

4.  On 10 July 1980, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), was imposed against
the applicant for leaving his appointed place of duty without authority on
6 July 1980.  His punishment included a forfeiture of $50.00 pay for 1
month, 10 days of extra duty, and reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade
E-1 (suspended for
30 days).
5.  On 15 August 1980, a bar to reenlistment was initiated against the
applicant.  The commander cited the basis for the bar to reenlistment was
the above NJP; that the applicant was constantly seeking ways to avoid
working; that he was continuously reprimanded for not being on time; that
he disrupted company morale with constant pleas and fits of anger when he
did not get what he wanted; that he had a poor attitude and lacked
promotion potential and that he wanted to get out of the military.  On 5
September 1980, the bar to reenlistment was approved.  The applicant did
not appeal the bar to reenlistment.

6.  On 3 September 1980, the commander notified the applicant that he was
being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, paragraph 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for
retention, the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP), with a GD.  The
commander stated that the applicant had been counseled five times
concerning deficiencies.  He demonstrated a lack of motivation and self-
discipline.  He had a poor attitude and he failed to demonstrate
promotional potential.  He was a quitter; his performance was clearly
substandard and he had an inability to adapt emotionally.  He was also
informed of the rights available to him and that he had the right to legal
counsel.

7.  On the same date, the applicant consulted with legal counsel; he
acknowledged notification and voluntarily consented to the discharge.  He
authenticated a statement with his own signature in which he acknowledged
that he understood the ramifications of receiving a GD.  The available
record does not contain a statement that the applicant submitted in his own
behalf.

8.  On 19 September 1980, the approval authority approved the
recommendation and directed the issuance of a GD.

9.  On 24 September 1980, the applicant was separated with a GD under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, for failure to
maintain acceptable standards for retention, EDP.  He had completed a total
of 11 months and 7 days of active military service and he had no recorded
lost time.

10.  The available evidence does not show that the applicant has ever
applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge
under that boards 15-year statute of limitation.
11.  Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority
for the elimination of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-31 provided, in
pertinent part, for the separation of those individuals who failed to
maintain acceptable standards for retention.  This paragraph also provided
for the separation of those individuals that demonstrated an inability to
adapt socially or emotionally to the Army environment or those who
responded initially but within a short period of time demonstrated that
they were incapable of permanent adjustment.  Under this regulation a GD or
a HD was considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with
law and regulations applicable at the time.  Both the characterization of
service and the narrative reason for separation are commensurate with the
applicant’s overall record of military service.

2.  The quality of the applicant’s service was not sufficiently meritorious
to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge he is
requesting.  He has established no basis for the upgrade.

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 24 September 1980; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
23 September 1983.  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

__kan___  __jea___  __lmd___  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.



                                  Kathleen A. Newman
            ______________________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040000053                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050125                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(GD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19800924                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200, Chap 5                       |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0135                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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