RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        26 May2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040007717


      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. Prevolia Harper               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Melvin H. Meyer               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Seema E. Salter               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Susan A. 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 be upgraded from general
under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant provides no statement in support of his request.

3.  The applicant provides no documents in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on
4 January 1985, the date of his separation from active service.  The
application submitted in this case is dated 7 April 2003; however the
application was received on 30 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 enlisted in the Army on 5 April 1978 for a period of 3
years.  He completed basic and advanced individual training and was awarded
the military occupational specialty 67N10 (Helicopter Repairman).  He was
separated from active duty on 4 January 1985 with a general discharge under
honorable conditions.

4.  On 25 January 1984, the applicant was counseled by a noncommissioned
officer (NCO) in his chain of command.  The NCO advised the applicant that
this was the second notification and that he would be recommended for
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military
Justice for failure to repair and writing bad checks.

5.  On 8 June 1984, the applicant was counseled by an NCO regarding why he
[the applicant] had not been recommended to attend a promotion board.  The
reasons cited on the counseling form included the applicant's lack of
concern and
motivation.  The NCO also listed areas of improvement for the applicant
which included improving his job performance, initiative, military
appearance, attitude, and responsibility.


6.  The applicant's records show that during the period 6 July 1984 to
21 September 1984, the applicant was counseled on five separate occasions
for failure to meet weight standards.

7.  The applicant was counseled on 9 August 1984 regarding his
indebtedness.  The applicant was also counseled on his poor performance and
lack of judgment.

8.  On 17 October 1984, the applicant's commander issued him a bar to
reenlistment certificate.  The commander stated that the applicant incurred
personal indebtedness and that the applicant filed for personal bankruptcy
with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas.
He also stated that the applicant did not meet the minimum standards for
weight control and personal appearance and commented that the applicant
demonstrated apathy and lack of self discipline and an attitude not
conducive to good order and discipline.

9.  On 18 October 1984, the applicant's commander informed him that he was
being considered for separation from the Army for unsatisfactory
progression in the Weight Control Program.

10.  On 11 December 1984, the applicant was notified by his commanding
officer that he was being recommended for separation under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for indebtedness.  He also cited
that the applicant was overweight and a substandard Soldier who had a
multitude of problems ranging from severe indebtedness to a negative
attitude associated with his work responsibilities.  The commander also
noted that the applicant had been removed from flight status and duties in
the Lift Platoon associated with aircraft maintenance and transferred to
another platoon as a rehabilitative measure.

11.  On 17 December 1984, the applicant was advised by consulting counsel
of the basis for the contemplated separation action.  The applicant was
advised of the impact of the discharge action and waived having his case
being heard by a board of officers.  The applicant also indicated that he
did not wish to provide statements on his own behalf.







12.  On 20 December 1984, the appropriate authority approved the request
and directed the applicant receive a general discharge and be transferred
to the Individual Ready Reserve.  The approval authority further stated
that the applicant had potential for further service under full
mobilization and that his characterization of service was under honorable
conditions.

13.  On 4 January 1985, the applicant was discharged, with a general
discharge, in pay grade E-4, under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army
Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance.  He had completed 6
years and 9 months, of creditable active service and had no lost time.

14.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board within that Board's 15-year statute of limitations.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for
administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of this
regulation, in effect at the time, provides for separation due to
unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment the individual
will not become a satisfactory soldier; retention will have an adverse
impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member
will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will
continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform
effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or
leadership, is unlikely.  Service of soldiers separated because of
unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as
honorable or under honorable conditions.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

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






2.  Evidence shows that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged
in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time.

3.  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.

4.  The applicant requests that his discharge be upgraded to an honorable
discharge.  However, his records show that he had severe indebtedness, was
overweight, and was relieved of his duties for substandard performance.
Based on these facts, the applicant’s service did not meet the standards of
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel which are
required for issuance of an honorable discharge.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 4 January 1985; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 3 January 1988.  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

__mhm___  __ses___  __sap___  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.



                                        Melvin H. Meyer
                                  ______________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040007717                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050526                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19850104                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, Chap 13                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.4900                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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