RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          10 May 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040004105


      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. Jennifer L. Prater            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Bernard P. Ingold             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Antonio Uribe                 |     |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 General Discharge (GD) under honorable
conditions be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that both he and his wife were age 19
and homesick and he strongly desired separation from the military.  He is
now age 40 and he is still being affected by the discharge.

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 29 April 1983.  The application submitted in this case is dated
6 July 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 28 May 1982, the applicant enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program
(DEP), in the US Army Reserve for a period of 6 years.  On 14 July 1982, he
was discharged from the DEP and enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years
and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).
On
24 November 1982, he was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina with duties
in his MOS.

4.  On 3 December 1982, the applicant was counseled concerning a negative
attitude.  On 28 February and 22 March 1983, he was counseled concerning
poor performance.

5.  On 30 March 1983, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation.
The examining psychiatrist stated that the applicant presented no evidence
of a psychiatric disease which required medical treatment.  However, he
appeared to be unmotivated for further military service, as evidence by his
expression of dislike for the military.  He was immature and used poor
judgment.  He demonstrated some characteristics that centered on
ineffectiveness and inability to adapt.  Persons of this type generally
exhibit a low tolerance for stress and an inability to delay gratification
of needs.  Their behavior is often childlike and they have a tendency to
avoid adult responsibilities.  The examining psychiatrist also believed he
would require close supervision to be successful in the military.
He was determined to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right
from wrong, and adhere to the right.  He was cleared for whatever
administrative action his chain of command deemed appropriate.  Separation
under the provisions of chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance was
believed to be a viable alternative.

6.  On 31 March 1983, the applicant's commander officially notified him
that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of chapter
13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance.  On the same
date, the applicant acknowledged notification of the commander’s intent to
separate him and consulted with legal counsel concerning the basis for the
contemplated separation action and the rights available to him.  He
declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He was not entitled to
consideration of his case by a board of officers.

7.  On 14 April 1983, the applicant's commander recommended that he be
separated under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200 for
unsatisfactory performance.  The commander cited the basis for his
recommendation was that the applicant expressed a desire to be separated
from the military.  He demonstrated on a daily basis he was either
incapable or unwilling to conform to military regimentation.  He refused to
perform without constant supervision and he did not possess the ability or
the desire to become a productive Soldier.  The chain of command repeatedly
attempted to assist the applicant and failed to achieve the desired
results.

8.  On 14 April 1983, the appropriate authority waived further
rehabilitative requirements, approved the separation recommendation and
directed that the applicant be issued a GD.

9.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that, on 29 April 1983, he was
separated under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for
unsatisfactory performance with a GD.  He had completed 2 years, 4 months
and 7 days of creditable active military service.  He has no recorded lost
time.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and
outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory
performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate
a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member
will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further
training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.  Army policy states that a
GD, under honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but an
HD may be granted in meritorious cases.

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 applicant has established no basis for changing the character of
his service.

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 29 April 1983; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
28 April 1986.  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

__jlp___  __bpi___  __au____  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.


                                  Jennifer L. Prater
            ______________________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040004105                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050510                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(GD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19830429                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200, Chap 13                      |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.4900                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |

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