RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        1 NOVEMBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050002223


      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. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Anderholm               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas O’Shaughnessy          |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Carol Kornhoff                |     |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 that 60 days be added to his active duty service
time in order for him to qualify for his G.I. Bill.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his time while incarcerated and the
leave time he had were not counted in his active duty service time.  He
states he was on leave for 4 months, but still on active duty following his
jail time.  He states he was still being paid and was still going to the
motor pool until his discharge.  He notes his discharge was upgraded.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant enlisted in the
Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 26 August 1986.  He was convicted
by a special court-martial for larceny and forgery on 2 March 1988 and
placed in confinement that same day as part of his court-martial sentence.
His sentence also included reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture, and a
bad conduct discharge.

2.  The applicant was released from confinement on 20 April 1988 after
serving only 1 month and 19 days of his 2 month confinement sentence.  In
accordance with the Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation,
absence from military duty because of confinement as a result of a court-
martial sentence is not considered creditable service.

3.  According to a Department of the Army Form 31 (Request and Authority
for Leave), which the applicant authenticated, he was placed in an
involuntary excess leave status commencing at 1315 hours on 2 May 1988
pending appellate review of his bad conduct discharge.  In a statement
acknowledging that he was being placed in an excess leave status, the
applicant indicated he understood he would not be entitled to any pay or
allowances while on excess leave, that his 22 days of accumulated leave
would be exhausted as part of the excess leave request, and that if his
punitive discharge were ultimately affirmed his discharge document would be
mailed to him at the address he provided.

4.  The Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation states that
excess leave is without pay and allowances, but is considered creditable
service for longevity.

5.  On 7 December 1998 the applicant's bad conduct discharge was executed.
His separation document notes the applicant's lost time (noncreditable
service) in item 29 as the period between 2 March 1988 and 20 April 1988
while he was in confinement.  His period of excess less is recorded in item
18 (remarks) on the separation document.

6.  Item 12c (net active service this period) on the applicant's separation
document reflects a total of 2 years, 1 months, and 23 days of creditable
active Federal service.  That period includes the time the applicant was in
an excess leave status but does not include his 1 month and 19 days of lost
time resulting from his period of confinement.

7.  Chapter 30, United States Code 38, commonly referred to as the
Montgomery GI Bill, provides education and training opportunities to
eligible persons.  The Montgomery GI Bill applied to individuals who
entered active duty on or after
1 July 1985.  To be eligible for benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill an
individual must have served on active duty for a period of 3 continuous
years unless discharged early as a result of disability, hardship, or a
reduction in force. A fully honorable discharge is required and discharges
"under honorable conditions" and "general" discharges do not establish
edibility for the Montgomery GI Bill.  Generally, benefits under the
Montgomery GI Bill expire 10 years after separation from active duty.

8.  In 1996 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition
to upgrade the character of his discharge.  In 1997 this Board also denied
the applicant's petition to upgrade the character of his discharge.
However, in May 2004, following a personal appearance hearing, the Army
Discharge Review Board granted the applicant's petition to upgrade the
character of his discharge and he was issued a new separation document
indicating he was discharged under honorable conditions.  The reason for
his discharge, however, did not change.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's period of excess leave has already been included in the
computation of his total active Federal service between 1986 and 1988.  His
time in confinement, which is considered lost time, was not included in his
service computation.

2.  The applicant has provided no evidence that he is entitled to an
additional 60 days of active Federal service and in the absence of such
evidence, there is no basis to grant the relief requested.
3.  Even if there were evidence to grant the applicant's request for 60
additional days of active Federal service he would still not meet
eligibility requirements for benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill.  The
applicant's benefits would have expired in 1998, he did not complete 3
years of continuous active duty, and both his original and current
characterization of service disqualify him from receiving the education
benefit.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JA____  __TO ___  __CK ___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.





                                  ____James Anderholm______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050002223                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051101                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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