RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          21 October 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004102182


      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. Rosa M. Chandler              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Deborah Jacobs                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Ronald J. Weaver              |     |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 uncharacterized discharge
be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he enlisted in the military and
realized he had made a mistake.  He was young and immature and thought that
quitting was the best way to get out.

3.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 12 July 1985.  The application submitted in this case is dated
5 December 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.  On 15 May 1985, at age 19, the applicant enlisted in the Delayed Entry
Program (DEP).  On 18 April 1985, he was discharged from the DEP and he
enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years and training in career management
field (CMF) 19F (Armor), a cash bonus in the amount of $5,000, and for the
Army College Fund Program.  On 29 May 1985, he was assigned to Fort Knox,
Kentucky for basic armor training.

4.  Between May and July 1985, the applicant received general counseling
statements for:  a lack of motivation and self-confidence; a poor physical
condition; an apathetic attitude; a lack of initiative; a lackadaisical
attitude; failure to follow instructions; smoking cigarettes while in
formation; inability to adjust a military environment; committing a
security violation; disobeying a lawful order; substandard performance, on
more than one occasion and for being disrespectful in language towards the
first sergeant.




5.  On 29 June 1985, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), was imposed against
the applicant for disobeying a lawful order given by a noncommissioned
officer (NCO) on 25 June 1985.  On 2 July 1985, NJP was imposed against the
applicant for disobeying a lawful order given by an NCO, for being
disrespectful in language towards an NCO, and for behaving disrespectfully
towards a commissioned officer on 2 July 1985.  Both punishments included
the forfeiture of $133.00 pay per month for 1 month and 14 days of extra
duty and restriction.

6.  On 2 July 1985, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation
of separation action under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation
635-200, due to entry-level performance and conduct with an uncharacterized
discharge.  He was also advised of his rights and of the impact of the
discharge action.  On an unknown date, the applicant acknowledged
notification, consulted legal counsel and did not submit a statement in his
own behalf.

7.  On 5 July 1985, the applicant's unit commander recommended that the
applicant be separated under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation
635-200, due to entry-level performance and conduct with an uncharacterized
discharge.  The commander's basis for his recommendation was the applicant
was extremely immature; and that he refused to become a productive soldier.
 He was not motivated to participate in physical training; he displayed a
quitter's attitude; he was disrespectful; he had trouble getting along with
his peers; he refused to obey orders; and that he was a negative influence
on morale and good discipline.  The commander believed he should be
discharged immediately.

8.  On 8 July 1985, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation.
His behavior was determined to be normal; he was fully alert and fully
oriented.  His mood and affect were unremarkable; his thinking process was
clear; his thought content was normal; and his memory was good.  It was
determined he was mentally responsible and he was psychiatrically cleared
to participate in any administrative actions deemed appropriate by his
chain of command.

9.  On 8 July 1985, the separation authority approved the recommendation
and directed that the applicant be separated in an entry-level status with
an uncharacterized discharge.

10.  On 12 July 1985, the applicant was separated under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11 (entry level status - performance and
conduct) with an uncharacterized discharge.  He had completed 1 month and
28 days of active military service.
11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11 of that regulation provides
for the separation of personnel during the initial 180 days of service
while still in an entry-level status.
The policy applies to soldiers who have demonstrated that they are not
qualified for retention because they cannot meet the minimum standards
prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of
aptitude, ability, motivation or self-discipline.  These soldiers are given
an uncharacterized discharge and, when discharged under the provisions of
chapter 11, are discharged by reason of entry-level status performance and
conduct.  Only in certain meritorious cases approved by the Secretary of
the Army are they entitled to an honorable discharge.

12.  There is no evidence the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board (ADRB).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The available evidence shows the applicant was discharged due to
unsatisfactory performance and conduct.  He lacked the motivation and skill
required to become an effective soldier.  The applicant's administrative
separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with
no indication of procedural errors, which would have jeopardized his
rights.

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

3.  The applicant's contention that he was young and immature was noted,
however, he met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is
no evidence available that shows he was any less mature than other soldiers
of the same age who successfully completed their military service
obligation.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 12 July 1985; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
11 July 1988.  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 FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jea___  ___dj___  __rje___  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                 |AR2004102185                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041021                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(UNCHAR)                                |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19850712                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200, Chap 11                      |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |A30.00                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0029                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |

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