RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        4 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040009133


      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. Robert J. McGowan             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |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 the administrative bar to
reenlistment be removed from his records, and that his DD Form 214
(Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) be corrected to show
his rank as E-3 or E-4 and award of the Good Conduct Medal.

2.  The applicant states that he was an above average Soldier and believes
he is entitled to the Good Conduct Medal.  He believes that his company
commander over-reacted in imposing the bar to reenlistment.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 and, by separate
cover, a copy of the contents of his Military Personnel Records Jacket
(MPRJ).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 9 November 1983.  The application submitted in this case
is dated 7 July 2004 and was received on 27 October 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 as a Private (PV2/E-2) in the Regular Army for 3
years on 27 August 1979.  He reenlisted for 3 years on 23 March 1982.  He
was trained in military occupational specialty (MOS) 72E (Telecommunication
Center Operator).

4.  The applicant's records indicate he was a substandard Soldier.  His
record of appointments and reductions shows the following:

                    PV2/E-2  27 August 1979
                    PVT/E-1  2 May 1980
                    PV2/E-2  1 June 1981
                    PFC/E-3  1 August 1981
                    SP4/E-4  1 November 1981
                    PFC/E-3  16 March 1983
                    PV2/E-2  8 April 1983
                    PVT/E-1  20 April 1983

5.  The applicant's records contain references to nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on six different
occasions.  He accepted NJP on 18 August 1980 for failure to go to duty, on
18 September 1980 for failure to go to duty, on an undisclosed date for
failure to go to duty, on 16 March 1983 for failure to go to duty, on 8
April 1983 for failure to obey a lawful order, and on 20 April 1983 for
failure to go to duty.  All of his reductions were as a result of
punishment imposed by NJP.

6.  Shortly after he reenlisted, he received a locally-imposed bar to
reenlistment on 2 July 1982.  In his response to the bar, the applicant
indicated that he knew he hadn't been the best of Soldiers, but he had
learned his lesson.  He stated that he would straighten up and "get the job
done."  He asked that the bar not be imposed.  The bar was imposed and was
reviewed on 18 January 1983.  It was determined that the bar would remain
in effect.

7.  On 8 October 1982, the applicant was involved in a one-car traffic
accident and suffered injuries to his neck and left ankle.  It was
determined that he was physically unable to perform his duties and he
underwent physical evaluation processing.  As the result of a formal
physical evaluation board (PEB) hearing on 27 June 1983, the applicant was
determined to be 20% disabled and was recommended for separation with
severance pay.

8.  He was honorably discharged on 9 November 1983 by reason of physical
disability with severance pay.  His DD Form 214 shows that he was awarded
the Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, and Expert Marksmanship
Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.  His rank at discharge was PVT/E-1.

9.  On 19 December 1983, his records went before the Secretary of the Army
Ad Hoc Review Board for determination of his eligibility for severance pay
in grade SP4/E-4.  The Ad Hoc Review Board determined that the applicant
had not performed satisfactorily as an SP4/E-4, but that he had qualified
as a PFC/E-3 and should receive severance pay at that grade.

10.  The Good Conduct Medal (GCMDL) is awarded to individuals who
distinguish themselves by their conduct, efficiency and fidelity during a
qualifying period of active duty enlisted service.  This period is 3 years
except in those
cases when the period for the first award ends with the termination of a
period of Federal military service.  Army Regulation 672-5-1, then in
effect, required that an individual show that he/she willingly complied
with the demands of the military environment, had been loyal and obedient,
and faithfully supported the goals of his/her organization and the Army.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The record clearly shows that the applicant was a substandard Soldier
with six incidents of NJP and a locally-imposed bar to reenlistment.
Clearly, he did not qualify for award of the Good Conduct Medal on his
first enlistment based on his record of indiscipline.  On his second
enlistment, he had disciplinary problems and he did not complete 3 years of
service.

2.  The applicant's locally-imposed bar to reenlistment was
administratively correct and was correctly reviewed after initial
imposition.  By his poor conduct, the applicant demonstrated that he was
not worthy of reenlistment.

3.  The applicant's record of appointments and reductions shows that he had
extreme difficulty maintaining his rank.  His reductions were the direct
result of misconduct and the imposition of punishment under Article 15,
Uniform Code of Military Justice.  At the time of his discharge, the
applicant was a PVT/E-1; there is no error or injustice related to his
rank.  A Secretary of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board determined that he
served satisfactorily as a PFC/E-3 only for the purpose of determining
severance pay.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 9 November 1983; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 8 November 1986.  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

__jea___  __rtd___  __lmd___  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                 |AR20040009133                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050804                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |100.0000                                |
|2.                      |107.0056                                |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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