RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        8 SEPTEMBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040010415


      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. Gale J. Thomas                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William Powers                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Meixell                  |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Larry Olson                   |     |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 records be corrected by upgrading his
discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states that the only reason he joined the military was
because a friend was joining and they were enlisting under the Buddy
System, however, his friend had eye problems and could not join.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his discharge proceedings in support
of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on
3 June 1981.  The application submitted in this case was received on
24 November 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 records are not available to the Board.  This
case is being considered using reconstructed records provide by the
applicant.

4.  The applicant enlisted in the Ohio Army National Guard on 27 April
1979.  He was ordered to active duty on 10 March 1981.

5.  On 16 March 1981, the applicant was counseled for failure of the 95B
(Military Police) MOS (military Occupational Specialty) because of academic
and motivational reasons.  He received an oral reprimand.  He was advised
that continued problems could result in separation and the issuance of a
general discharge certificate.



6.  On 14 April 1981, he was counseled for his lack of motivation,
interest, and poor progress in the 76Y (Unit Supply) MOS Course.  He
received an oral reprimand, and was again advised of the possibility of
being discharged.

7.  On 17 April 1981, the applicant was dropped from advanced individual
training for academic failure.

8.  On 21 April 1981, the applicant was counseled by his commander for
failing MOS training because of a lack of motivation and academic failures.
 His commander noted that he was recommending elimination under the
provisions of Chapter 13, for unsuitability.

9.  On 28 April 1981, the applicant was notified by his commander of his
intent to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
Chapter 13 for unsuitability.  His commander stated that the applicant’s
discharge was based on his lack of motivation and interest as reflected by
his marginal duty performance and his failure of two MOS training (95B and
76Y) marked him as a liability to the US Army.  He was advised of his
rights and the options available to him.

10.  On 29 April 1981, the applicant, after consulting with counsel,
acknowledged that he understood the basis for his commander’s actions and
waived consideration of his case by a board officers, personal appearance
before a board of officers, and elected not to submit a statement in his
own behalf.  He acknowledged that he understood that he could expect to
encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general or under
honorable conditions discharge was issued to him.  He further acknowledged
that he understood that if he received an undesirable discharge he may
encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life, and may be ineligible for
many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.

11.  On 12 May 1981, his commander recommended his elimination from the
service, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, for
unsuitability.  His commander stated that the applicant was being
recommended for elimination from the service before the expiration of his
term of service for unsuitability because of inaptitude, apathy, defective
attitude, and inability to expend efforts constructively.

12.  The applicant’s intermediate commander recommended his separation,
stating that the applicant did not posse the positive attitude, self-
discipline or motivation to be a productive Soldier, that he was a failure
of MOS 95B, and was given a second chance in another MOS, 76Y.

13.  On 24 May 1973, the appropriate separation authority approved the
applicant’s discharge, and directed the issuance of a general discharge.

14.  On 27 May 1981, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, for unsuitability.  His DD Form 214
(Report of Separation from Active Duty) indicates he had 2 months, and 18
days of active service.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  There is no evidence and the applicant has not provided any that his
inability to complete training was related to his friend not being
permitted to enlist with him.

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

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 3 June 1981; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
2 June 1984.  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

___WP __  __JM ___  __LO ___  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.




                                  _____ William Powers_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040010415                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050908                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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