RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        14 July 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040005037


      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. David S. Griffin              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Kenneth L. Wright             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Joe R. Schroeder              |     |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 discharge under other than
honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his offense did not warrant an
under other than honorable discharge and that the Army Good Conduct Medals
that he was previously awarded were not taken into account when
characterizing his discharge.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 16 May 1984, the date of his discharge.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 26 July 2004 and was received on 5 August
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 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's military service records show that he was inducted on
23 July 1970 for a period of 2 years.  He was released from active duty on
1 March 1972.  He had completed 1 year, 7 months and 9 days of active
service characterized as honorable.

4.  The applicant reenlisted in the U.S. Army on 5 October 1977 for a
period of
4 years.  He was discharged 6 July 1981.  He had completed 3 years, 9
months and 2 days of active service characterized as honorable.

5.  The applicant reenlisted on 7 July 1981 for a period of 3 years.  He
was discharged on 12 January 1984.  He had completed 2 years, 6 months and
7 days of active service characterized as honorable.

6.  The applicant reenlisted on 13 January 1984 for a period of 6 years.

7.  The applicant's complete separation processing package was not
available for the Board's review.

8.  On 13 March 1984, court-martial charges were preferred against the
applicant for conspiracy to commit an offense under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ), violation of a lawful regulation (2
specifications), wrongful disposal of military property of the United
States without proper authority, and unlawfully receiving four temporary
ration control plates.  All offenses occurred outside the territorial
limits of the United States.

9.  The charges were referred to a special court-martial empowered to
adjudge a bad conduct discharge.

10.  The applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service in
lieu of court-martial was not available for the Board to review.

11.  On 3 May 1984, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's
request for discharge for the good of the service, directed that the
applicant be reduced to private/pay grade E-1, and that he be furnished a
Discharge Certificate Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.

12.  On 16 May 1984, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under
the provisions of Chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of
the service in lieu of court-martial.  His character of service was under
other than honorable conditions.  He had completed 4 months and 4 days of
active service during this enlistment. The highest grade the applicant held
was staff sergeant/pay grade E6.

13.  Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and
Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the applicant's DD Form 214
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with a separation
date
16 May 1984 showed that he had been awarded three Army Good Conduct Medals

14.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to
upgrade his discharge.  On 5 July 1985, the ADRB reviewed and denied the
applicant's request for upgrade.  The ADRB determined that the applicant's
discharge was proper and equitable and that the discharge was properly
characterized as under other than honorable conditions.

15.  On 31 March 1986, the ADRB notified the applicant that due to his
failure to appear at a personal hearing on 18 March 1986 his case was
closed. The ADRB further advised the applicant that he was ineligible for
further consideration by the ADRB.

16.  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.  The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing
that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute
allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion
requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens
that filing period, has determined that the
3-year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records
(ABCMR) should commence on the date of final action by the ADRB.  In
complying with this decision, the ABCMR has adopted the broader policy of
calculating the 3-year time limit from the date of exhaustion in any case
where a lower level administrative remedy is utilized.

17.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states, in pertinent part
that the Army Good Conduct Medal is awarded to individuals who distinguish
themselves by their conduct, efficiency and fidelity during a qualifying
period of active duty enlisted service.  After 27 June 1950 to the present
time, the current standard for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal is 3
years of qualifying service, but as little as one year is required for the
first award in those cases when the period of service ends with the
termination of Federal military service.

18.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative
Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the administrative
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides,
in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses
for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at
any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for
discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A
discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered
appropriate.

19.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides that 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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so
meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.
 Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

20.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides that 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.  A
characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the
reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such
characterization.

21.  Under the provisions of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States,
1969 (Revised edition), the maximum punishment that the applicant could
have received for his offenses was a bad conduct  discharge, 6 months
confinement, forfeiture of two-thirds pay and allowances for 6 months and
reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his discharge under other than honorable
conditions should be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant contends that his offense did not warrant an under other
than honorable conditions discharge because he had previously served
honorably as evidenced by his Army Good Conduct Medals.

3.  The applicant's receipt of three Army Good Conduct Medals is noted.
However, he received these awards based on his conduct, efficiency and
fidelity during previous qualifying periods of active duty enlisted
service.  In view of the seriousness of the charges against the applicant
and the fact that he requested an under other than honorable conditions
discharge, the previously awarded Army Good Conduct Medals are
insufficiently mitigating to upgrade a properly issued discharge.

4.  Although the applicant's complete separation package was not available,
in order to be discharged under Chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, the
applicant had to have voluntarily requested discharge, admitted his guilt,
and acknowledged that he could receive an under other than honorable
conditions discharge.  If he had gone to court-martial he could have
received a bad conduct discharge, 6 months confinement, forfeiture of two-
thirds pay and allowances for 6 months and reduction to the lowest enlisted
grade.  Therefore, the applicant's contention that his offenses did not
warrant an under other than honorable conditions discharge is not supported
by the evidence.

5.  The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of
administrative regularity.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it
is determined that all requirements of law and regulations were met and the
rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation
process.  Further, it is determined that the type of discharge and the
reason for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the
case.

6.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must,
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.

7.  The charges against the applicant were very serious in nature and he
could have received a punitive discharge.  Therefore his quality of service
did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty
for Army personnel.  As a result, the applicant is not entitled to an
honorable discharge.

8.  In view of the applicant's abuse of a position of trust in him and the
seriousness of the charges that were preferred his record of service is not
satisfactory. Therefore, there is no basis to upgrade his discharge to a
general discharge.

9.  Based on all of the foregoing, there is insufficient basis to upgrade
the applicant's discharge.

10.  Records show the applicant exhausted his administrative remedies in
this case when his case was last reviewed by the ADRB on 31 March 1986.  As
a result, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of
any error or injustice to this Board expired on 30 March 1989.  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 file in this.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__KLW__  __JEA___  __JRS   _  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 E. Anderholm___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040005037                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050714                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)          |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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