RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        25 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040008490


      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. G. E. Vandenberg              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Margaret K. Patterson         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald E. Blakely             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Linda M. Barker               |     |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) be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he is seeking advancement as a
security officer that requires obtaining a firearms permit.  He is
concerned that with his current GD he will not be able to obtain the permit
and will deny him advancement.  He asks that his past youthful ignorance
not continue to negatively impact his life.

3.  The applicant provides copies letters of reference from a long time
employer and his wife, a personal statement, and an Army Commendation Medal
certificate.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 20 July 1971.  The application submitted in this case is dated
28 September 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 record shows he entered active duty on 29 December
1967, completed training, and was awarded the military occupational
specialty (MOS) of 76W (petroleum storage specialist).

4.  During this period of service the applicant was assigned duty in
Vietnam from 8 June 1968 through 3 June 1969.

5.  The applicant received  nonjudicial  punishment  (NJP)  on  13  February
1969, for sleeping on sentinel post.

6.  He reenlisted on 13 January 1970 and was reassigned to duty in Germany
on 7 April 1970.

7.  The applicant received NJP on 3 June 1970, for being AWOL (absent
without leave) for 5 and 1/2 hours.

8.  There is also an indication that the applicant received NJP on 20
August 1970 for misconduct, however the documentation relating to this NJP
is not of record.

9.  On 12 June 1971 the applicant received NJP for three occurrences of
failure to report for his assigned duties.

10.  In June 1971 his unit commander initiated separation action under Army
Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability.  In the narrative portion of the
recommendation the unit commander indicated that the action was proposed
due to his "unsatisfactory performance and repeated failure to comport
himself in accordance with those standards required by the U. S.
Army."…."He has been a continuous disciplinary problem and has failed to
handle his finances satisfactorily."  The unit commander indicated that the
applicant had been forcibly evicted from three separate economy units for
failure to pay his rent and failing to maintain normal levels of
cleanliness and sanitation.

11.  On 24 June 1971 the applicant acknowledged this proposed action and
waived his rights to counsel, to appear before a board officers, and to
offer a statement on his own behalf.

12.  The separation authority accepted the recommendation and directed that
the applicant be discharged under Army Regulation 635-212 with a general
discharge.

13.  The applicant was discharged on 20 July 1971 under honorable
conditions.  He had 3 years, 6 months, and 22 days of creditable service.

14.  The letters of reference provided by the applicant, describes him as a
hard working and dependable worker who can be counted on to do more than is
expected of him.

15.  Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and
procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel for
unfitness and unsuitability. It provided, in pertinent part, for discharge
due to unsuitability because of apathy by a displayed lack of appropriate
interest and/or an inability to expend effort constructively.  When
separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general
discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon
the individual's entire record.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200, sets forth the policies and procedures for
enlisted personnel separations.  Chapter 3 outlines the criteria for
characterization of service.  Paragraph 3-7a states that an honorable
discharge (HD) is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization
of service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service
generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of
duty.  Paragraph 3-7a(1) in pertinent part states:  “A Soldier will not
necessarily be denied an honorable discharge solely by reason of a specific
number of convictions by court-martial or actions under the UCMJ Art 15.”
“It is a pattern of behavior and not the isolated instance which should be
considered the governing factor in determination of character of service.”
Paragraph 3-7b state that a general discharge (GD) is a separation under
honorable conditions issued to a Soldier whose military record was
satisfactory but not so meritorious as to warrant an honorable discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and
regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is
commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2.  While the Board is cognizance of the applicant's good post-service
conduct and his potential employment problems; neither of these factors,
either individually or in sum is so meritorious as to warrant the relief
requested.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 20 July 1971; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 19 July 1974.  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

__MKP__  _REB ___  __LMB __  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.




                                  _    Margaret K. Patterson_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040008490                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050825                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19710720                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-212 . . . . .                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |SPN 264                                 |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.000                                 |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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