RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         08 FEBRUARY 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040001581


      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. Kenneth H. Aucock             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Margaret Patterson            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Shirley Powell                |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Susan Powers                  |     |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
(general) be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states that he had tendonitis in his arm, causing him to
fail a physical readiness test, which led to his discharge.  He has been
passed over for certain jobs because the reason for his discharge is
unsatisfactory performance.  When he took his first physical readiness
test, his drill sergeant was responsible for him passing the test.  He
tried his best to pass the 31V [military occupational specialty] school.
He passed the 31K school but failed the physical readiness test.

3.  The applicant provides no evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 8 September 1986.  The application submitted in this case
is dated 25 November 2003.

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 enlisted in the Army for three years on 3 April 1985 for
training in MOS 31V, Tactical Communications System Operations.  He
completed basic training and attended the 31V course at Fort Sill,
Oklahoma.  His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows that he
failed to complete that course.  In November 1985 he was assigned to
Company A, 4th Battalion, 1st Signal School Brigade at Fort Gordon, Georgia
for training in MOS 31K (Combat Signaler).  He completed that course.

4.  The applicant’s medical records show that he was seen on 9 April 1985
because of pain in his left arm.  That record indicates that he fractured
his arm a year ago.  He was seen on 13 May 1985 because of pain in his left
forearm.  That report indicates that his arm was splinted and put in a cast
at the physical therapy clinic at Fort Sill.  He was seen again on 19 June
1985 because of pain in his left wrist, claiming that he reinjured his
wrist in April 1985 when doing push- ups and had continuous pain since
then.

5.  The applicant’s Army Physical Readiness Test Scorecard (DA Form 705)
shows that he passed the Army Physical Readiness Test (APRT) on 9 January
1986 with a score of 237 (out of a possible 300).  He failed the subsequent
three tests – 4 February 1986, 13 February 1986, and 19 February 1986.

6.  On 20 February 1986 his commanding officer counseled him regarding his
APRT failures, stating that he would be given one more chance to pass, and
then she would have to initiate discharge proceedings if he could not pass.
 She told him that active participation in remedial physical training was a
must.

7.  On 27 February 1986 he again took the APRT, and failed to pass.

8.  On 26 March 1986 the battalion executive officer counseled the
applicant, indicating that the applicant was reclassified to MOS 31K
because he was an academic failure at the 31V course at Fort Sill.  He had
problems with his left arm at Fort Sill, a slight case of tendonitis, but
has had remedial physical training to build up his strength.  He has a good
attitude; however, he [the battalion executive officer] recommended that he
be separated from the service.

9.  On 6 March 1986 the applicant’s commanding officer notified the
applicant that she was initiating action to separate him from the service
for unsatisfactory performance.  She stated that if he was discharged the
least favorable characterization of service he could receive would be a
general under honorable conditions.

10.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and stated that
he had been advised by his consulting counsel of the basis for the
contemplated action  to separate him for unsatisfactory performance, its
effects, the rights available to him, and the effect of any action taken by
him in waiving his rights.  He waived consultation with counsel, and stated
that he did not desire to make statements in his own behalf.  He stated
that he understood the nature and the consequences of the under honorable
conditions discharge that he might receive.

11.  On 6 March 1986 the applicant’s commanding officer recommended to the
separation authority that the applicant be discharged from the Army under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-2a.

12.  The separation authority approved the recommendation on 3 September
1986 and directed that the applicant receive a General Discharge
Certificate.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 establishes policy and
prescribes procedures for separating members for unsatisfactory
performance.  That chapter states, in part, that commanders will separate a
Soldier for unsatisfactory performance, when it is clearly established that
in the commander’s judgment, the Soldier will not develop sufficiently to
participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory
Soldier, or the ability of the Soldier to perform duties effectively in the
future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely.
The service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance
will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as
warranted by their military record.

14.  The above-mentioned regulation also provides the procedures for
separating a Soldier for unsatisfactory performance, to include notifying
the Soldier of the specific allegations on which the proposed action is
based, and advising the Soldier of the type of discharge and character of
service recommended by the initiating commander.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The rules regarding the applicant’s discharge proceedings were not
adhered to.  Notwithstanding the presumption that the applicant knew why
his commanding officer was recommending his discharge for unsatisfactory
performance, the evidence shows that the reason was not specified by his
commanding officer, nor did she inform him as to the type of discharge and
the character of service that she was recommending.  Nor did she make any
such recommendation to the separation authority.

2.  The battalion executive officer stated that the applicant had a good
attitude, but could not pass the APRT.  The characterization of his
service, “Under Honorable Conditions (General)” because of his inability to
pass the APRT appears to be unduly harsh and unfair to the applicant.

3.  Consequently, it would be only fair and fitting to grant the
applicant’s request. Therefore, his 8 September 1986 discharge under
honorable conditions (General) should be upgraded to “Honorable.”

BOARD VOTE:

___MP __  ___SP __  ___SP __  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
a recommendation for relief and to excuse failure to timely file.  As a
result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the
individual concerned be corrected by showing that he was discharged from
the Army on      8 September 1986 with an Honorable characterization of
service.




                            ____Margaret Patterson_____
                                      CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040001581                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050208                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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