RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          8 February 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004104116


      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:

|     |Ms. Margaret K. Patterson         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Shirley L. Powell             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Susan A. Powers               |     |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:

      a.  That his general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions be
upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.


      b.  Award of the Good Conduct Medal (GCMDL) and the Overseas Service
Ribbon (OSR).


      c.  That his delayed entry service be added to the total time served.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the Board should take into
consideration he was involved in a vehicle accident prior to being
separated and it resulted in him losing his memory.  He has spent a number
of years relearning the things that he had forgotten.  He is in the process
of being promoted and he is also returning to school.

3.  The applicant provides in support of his request a DD Form 214
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), issued on 14 April
1988; a Certificate of Achievement; the Army Achievement Medal; an
Honorable Discharge Certificate, issued on 25 November 1985; a General
Discharge Certificates, issued on
14 April 1988 and a Certificate of Appreciation.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 14 April 1988.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 17 February 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 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 21 October 1982, the applicant enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program
(DEP).  The applicant's DD Form 4/1 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document)
issued on 21 October 1982, shows that he acknowledged that he understood
time served in the DEP is in a non-pay status and is not creditable for pay
purposes upon entry into a pay status.
4.  On 12 January 1983, he was discharged from the DEP and he enlisted in
the Regular Army (RA) for 3 years and training in military occupational
specialty (MOS) 76P (Material Control and Accounting Specialist).
Following completion of all required military training; he was awarded MOS
76P and assigned to Fort Hood, Texas.

5.  On 25 November 1985, the applicant was honorably separated for
immediate reenlistment.  He was not issued a DD Form 214, however, he was
issued a honorable discharge certificate.  On 26 November 1986, the
applicant reenlisted in the RA for 3 years, his previous MOS 76P and in pay
grade E-4.

6.  The applicant's DD Form 4/1, issued on 26 November 1985, shows he had
completed 2 years, 10 months and 14 days of active military service.  He
had also completed 2 months and 22 days of inactive service.

7.  On 15 May 1987, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military (UCMJ), was imposed against the
applicant for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time
prescribed on 20 April 1987.  His punishment included reduction from pay
grade E-4 to pay grade E-3, a forfeiture of $196.00 pay per month for
1 month, and 14 days of extra duty and restriction (all three punishments
were suspended if not vacated before
15 August 1987).  On 4 June 1987, the applicant failed to repair and this
punishment was vacated.

8.  Between November 1986 and April 1988, the applicant was counseled
numerous times for failure to repair, twice for writing worthless checks,
and for assaulting his wife.

9.  On 23 September 1987, a bar to reenlistment was approved against the
applicant.  The above misconduct offenses are stated as the bases for the
bar to reenlistment.

10.  On 16 October 1987, NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ was
imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his appointed place of
duty at the time prescribed on 9 September 1987.  His punishment included
reduction from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-2, a forfeiture of $172.00 pay
for 1 month and 14 days of extra duty (both suspended).

11.  On 3 February 1988, NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ was
imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his appointed place of
duty at the time prescribed on 13 January 1988.  His punishment included
reduction from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-2, and a forfeiture of $175.00
pay for 1 month (suspended).
12.  On 19 February 1988, the applicant's commander officially notified him
that he was being recommended for discharge with a GD under the provisions
of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct-pattern of
misconduct.
The applicant was advised that the bases for the recommendation were the
above offenses and that his continued service in the military would be
detrimental to the Army and to himself.  He was also advised of the rights
available to him.

13.  On 19 February 1988, the applicant declined to consult with legal
counsel and acknowledged he had been advised of the nature of the
contemplated separation action and its effects.  He also acknowledged he
had been advised of the rights available to him.  He was not entitled to
have an administrative separation hearing by a board of officers.  He did
not submit a statement in his own behalf.

14.  On 19 February 1988, the unit commander recommended that the applicant
be separated under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200
with a GD.  On the same date, the intermediate commander recommended
approval with a GD.

15.  On 22 March 1988, the approval authority approved the recommendation
and directed that the applicant be separated for misconduct-pattern of
misconduct with GD.

16.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that on 14 April 1988, he was
separated with a GD under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-
200 for misconduct-pattern of misconduct.  Item 12c (Net Active Service
This Period) shows he completed 5 years, 3 months and 3 days of active
service.  Item 12h (Total Prior Inactive Service) shows he had completed 2
months and 21 days.

17.  The applicant's DD Form 214, Item 13 (Decorations, Medal, Badges,
Citations, and Campaigns Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) shows the Army
Achievement Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Expert Marksmanship Qualification
Badge (Rifle M-16) and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge
(Grenade).  The GCMDL is not shown as an authorized award.

18.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and
prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific
categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct,
commission of a serious offense, convictions 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.  Army policy
states that a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a GD
under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.

19.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides that the 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.  Although there is no automatic entitlement to the GCMDL,
disqualification must be justified.

20.  The OSR was established by the Secretary of the Army on 10 April 1981.
 It is awarded to members of the U.S. Army for successful completion of
overseas tours.  The OSR will not be awarded for overseas service
recognized with another U.S. service medal.  For example, if a soldier was
credited with overseas tour completions per AR 614-30 for Alaska, Berlin,
Germany, and also served in the Vietnam Conflict and the Persian Gulf War,
he or she would be entitled to the OSR with numeral 2 (Alaska and Germany),
the Army of Occupation Medal (Berlin), the Vietnam Service Medal, and the
Southwest Asia Service Medal.  Numerals will be used to denote second and
subsequent awards of the OSR.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  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.  Both the type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant's DEP service which equals 2 months and 21 days is
appropriately shown on his DD Form 214 in Item 12h as prior in active
service.  DEP service is not creditable active duty service.  Therefore it
is not calculated with the total time served in an active duty status.

4.  The applicant's first period of service was honorable, however, it
ended prior to him completing a full three period of service, which is
required for award of the GCMDL.  During the second period of service the
applicant was separated for misconduct, therefore, this period of service
is also not creditable service for award of the GCMDL.

5.  The applicant is authorized correction of his military record to show
award of the OSR.
6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 14 April 1988; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
13 April 1991.  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.

7.  Evidence shows that the applicant’s records contain administrative
error which does not require action by the Board.  Therefore,
administrative correction of the applicant's records will be accomplished
by the Case Management Support Division (CMSD), St. Louis, Missouri, as
outlined by the Board in paragraph 3 of the BOARD
DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION section below.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__mkp___  __slp___  __sap___  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.

3.  The Board determined that administrative error in the records of the
individual should be corrected.  Therefore, the Board requests that the
CMSD-St. Louis administratively correct the records of the individual
concerned to show award of the OSR.



            Margaret K. Patterson
            ______________________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004104116                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050208                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(GD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19880414                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200, Chap 14                      |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |A60.00                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |107.0056                                |
|2.                      |107.0079                                |
|3.                      |144.6000                                |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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