RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           19 January 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004106575


      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             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Bernard P. Ingold             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Larry C. Bergquist            |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Delia R. Trimble              |     |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 general, under honorable
conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was told he was against
“Blacks”, but this is not true.  He claims that many of his friends are
“Black”.

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 19 October 1982.  The application submitted in this case
is dated
29 March 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.  The applicant’s record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 31 July 1979.  He was trained in, awarded and served
in military occupational specialty (MOS) 63W (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).

4.  The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) shows, in
Item 18 (Appointments and Reductions), that he was promoted to specialist
four (SP4) on 1 April 1981, and that this is the highest rank he attained
while serving on active duty.  It also shows that on 5 August 1982, he was
reduced to private/E-2 (PV2).

5.  On 7 March 1980, the applicant was convicted of three specifications of
violating Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), by
being absent without leave (AWOL) during the following three periods:  8
through
14 January 1980, 21 January through 2 February 1980 and 7 through
10 February 1980.

6.  On 4 August 1982, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, for being AWOL from on or
about 20 through on or about 26 July 1982.  He was also formally counseled
by members of his chain of command on five separate occasions for
disciplinary infractions that included failure to pay just debts, AWOL and
failure to repair.

7.  On 23 August 1982, the applicant was notified by his unit commander
that action was being taken to separate him under the provisions of chapter
13,
Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of unsuitability.

8.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis
for the contemplated separation action and its effects, the rights
available to him and of the effect of a waiver of those rights.  Subsequent
to this counseling, he elected to waive consideration of his case by a
board of officers, personal appearance before a board of officers and he
choose not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

9.  The separation authority approved the applicant’s separation under the
provisions of paragraph 13-4(c)2, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of
unsuitability and directed the applicant receive a GD.  On 19 October 1982,
the applicant was discharged accordingly.

10.  The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant on the
date of his separation, 19 October 1982, shows he completed a total of 3
years,
1 month and 21 days of creditable active military service and accrued 28
days of time lost due to AWOL.  This document also confirms that during his
tenure on active duty, the applicant received the Army Service Ribbon and
Overseas Service Ribbon.

11.  There is no indication in the record that the applicant applied to the
Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-
year statute of limitations.
12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, in effect at the time,
provided the authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for
unsuitability based on inaptitude, personality disorder, apathy, or
homosexual tendencies.  Members separated under these provisions could
receive either an HD or GD.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that he was accused of disliking “Blacks”,
which is untrue, was carefully considered.  However, there is no reference
to this factor on file in his record and it was not one of the reasons
listed for his separation processing.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant accrued 28 days of AWOL
over four different periods of unauthorized absences from his unit.
Further, he had a history of failing to pay just debts.  These factors were
the basis for his unsuitability separation and led to his receiving a GD.

3.  The record further shows his separation processing was accomplished in
accordance with the applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and
regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected
throughout the separation process.  Further, the applicant’s discharge
accurately reflects his overall record of undistinguished service.

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 19 October 1982.  Thus, the time for
him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on
18 October 1985.  However, he failed to 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

___LCB_  __DRT___  __BPI___  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.




            ____Bernard P. Ingold___
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004106575                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/01/19                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1982/10/19                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unsuitability                           |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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