RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            4 May 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2004100519


      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. Wanda L. Waller               |     |Analyst              |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Stanley Kelley                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Joe Schroeder                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. William Powers                |     |Member               |

      The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

      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 under other than honorable
conditions be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he needs his discharge upgraded
to honorable to obtain employment as a security guard.  He also contends,
in effect, that his youth, family problems (father was ill, parents were
experiencing marital problems, and he had problems with his fiancée) and
problems with his supervisor led to his decision to go absent without leave
(AWOL).  He states that he is married and the father of two boys.

3.  The applicant provides two statements, dated 12 September 2003 and
18 September 2003, and a police report translated from Spanish.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 29 June 1987.  The application submitted in this case is dated
4 October 2003.

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 limitation 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 was born on 10 November 1963.  He enlisted in the U.S.
Army Reserve on 23 January 1982 for a period of 6 years under the delayed
entry program.  On 2 March 1982, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a
period of
3 years.  He trained as a unit supply specialist.  On 5 February 1985, he
reenlisted for a period of 5 years.

4.  On 11 January 1986, a bar to reenlistment was imposed against the
applicant for his record of non-payment of just debts.

5.  On 9 April 1987, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for failure to repair.  His punishment consisted of a reduction
to E-3 (suspended), a forfeiture of pay (suspended), restriction and extra
duty.  On 15 April 1987, the suspended portions (reduction to E-3 and
forfeiture of pay) of the applicant’s punishment were vacated.

6.  On 28 May 1987, the applicant went AWOL and was apprehended on 3 June
1987 and returned to military control.  On 4 June 1987, he was placed into
pretrial confinement and charges were preferred against the applicant for
missing movement on 28 May 1987, through design, by being AWOL from 28 May
1987 to 3 June 1987.

7.  On 5 June 1987, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and
requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He indicated in his request that
he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions
and furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate; that he
might be deprived of many or all Army benefits; that he might be ineligible
for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration; and
that he might be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under
both Federal and State law.  He also acknowledged that he might expect to
encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an Under Other
Than Honorable Discharge.  He elected to make a statement in his own
behalf.  In summary, he stated that he wanted a discharge because he had
family problems (parents were going to get divorced and he had problems
with his fiancée).  He also stated that he intended to get a job, go to
college, get married, and join the National Guard or Reserves (if
possible).

8.  On 25 June 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Other Than
Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.  He was also released from
confinement.

9.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable
conditions on 29 June 1987 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served 5 years, 6 months
and
1 days of total active service and had 27 days of lost time due to AWOL and
confinement.

10.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of
limitations.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides,
in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses
for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may,
submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial
by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges
have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.
Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under
other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

12.  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.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general
discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When
authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory
but not sufficiently
meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under
honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s
separation specifically allows such characterization.

 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Age alone is not a sufficiently mitigating factor.  In addition, the
applicant was 23 years old and on his second enlistment at the time of
misconduct for which he was separated.

2.  A discharge is not upgraded for the sole purpose of obtaining
employment opportunities.

3.  Family problems are not grounds for upgrading a discharge.

4.  Good post service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a
discharge.

5.  The applicant’s record of service included a bar to reenlistment, one
nonjudicial punishment and 27 days of lost time.  As a result, his record
of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore,
the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant
a general discharge or an honorable discharge.

6.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial,
was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable
regulations.

7.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

8.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 29 June 1987; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 28
June 1990.  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 RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

SK_____  JS______  WP______  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.




            ___Stanley Kelley_________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004100519                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040504                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19870629                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 Chapter 10                   |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |For the good of the service             |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |