RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        30 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040011753


      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. Judy L. Blanchard             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Paul M. Smith                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Yolanda Maldonado             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Leonard G. Hassell            |     |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 be upgraded to an
honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that a captain, attempted to force him
to inform on his fellow troops.  He believes it was because he had already
received two Article 15’s, which would force him out of the service.  He
further states, that he is not an informant and secondly his fellow troops
were of the highest caliber.  He states, that his discharge reads, “Due to
frequent run in with military and civil authorities”.  However, he states,
he was never arrested or prosecuted for anything.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or
injustice, which occurred on 20 March 1980, the date he was separated from
active duty.  The application submitted in this case is dated 6 December
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 enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 5 June 1978, for a period of 3 years.  He was
trained in, awarded and served in military occupational specialty (MOS)
63C10 (Track Vehicle Mechanic) and the highest rank he attained while
serving on active duty was pay grade E-2.

4.  On 20 February 1979, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment
(NJP), for disobeying a lawful order.  His imposed punishment was a
forfeiture of $50.00 pay.

5.  On 23 March 1979, the applicant accepted NJP for failure to go at the
prescribed time to his appointed place of duty and for disobeying a lawful
order.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1, a
forfeiture of $97.00 pay, 14 days restriction and 14 days extra duty.
6.  On 31 July 1979, the applicant accepted NJP for disobeying a lawful
order.  His imposed punishment was 14 days restriction and a forfeiture of
$75.00 pay (suspended for 90 days).

7.  On 17 August 1979, the applicant accepted NJP for three occasions of
disobeying a lawful order, for two occasions of failure to go at the
prescribed time his appointed place of duty and two occasions of being
disrespectful.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $50.00 pay, 14
days restriction and
14 days extra duty.

8.  On 13 December 1979, the applicant received a Bar to Enlistment/
Reenlistment Certificate.  The Bar was based on the applicant’s record of
NJP’s and frequent incidents of discreditable nature with military and
civilian authorities.

9.  The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge
proceedings are not in his Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ).
However, the MPRJ does contain separation document (DD Form 214) that
contains the authority and reason for the applicant’s discharge.  The
applicant authenticated this document with his signature indicating he was
discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, the
character of service was Under Conditions Other Than Honorable and that the
reason for discharge was Misconduct- frequent incidents of a discreditable
nature with civil or military authorities.

10.  On 20 March 1980, the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year
9 months, and 16 days of active military service.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the policy for the separation of
enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes
procedures for separating members by reason of misconduct.  Specific
categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct,
commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion
or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for
misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is
impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.

12.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army
Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-
year statute of limitations.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered, although, the
applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances
surrounding his discharge processing; it does contain a properly
constituted DD Form 214 that identifies the reason and characterization of
the applicant’s discharge and he authenticated this document with his
signature.

2.  The applicant’s contentions that he was forced out of the Army because
he would not become an informant was carefully considered and found to be
insufficient evidence to support granting the relief requested in this
case.  There was no evidence in his record nor did the applicant provide
any evidence in support of his allegation.  Therefore, given the
circumstances in this case and his overall undistinguished record of
service, there is insufficient evidence to support his request at this
time.

3.  The evidence of record also reveals that the applicant had an extensive
disciplinary history of military and civilian infractions that ultimately
led to his discharge.  Further, his record reveals no acts of valor,
significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.
Therefore, it is concluded that his discharge accurately reflects the
overall record of his short and undistinguished service.  Therefore, given
the circumstances in this case, there is insufficient evidence to grant his
request.

4.  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.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 20 March 1980; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
19 March 1983.  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

__PMS__  __YM ___  __LGH __  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.




                                    _____Paul M. Smith_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040011753                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050830                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(UD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1980/03/20                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200,chp10 . . . . .               |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |In lieu of court-martial                |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.110.00 |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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