RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          8 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050002920


      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. John Meixell                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. William Powers                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Larry Olson                   |     |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 his general discharge be upgraded to
honorable.

2.  The applicant provides no explanation.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 23 July 1975.  The application submitted in this case is dated
5 February 2005.

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 enlisted on 16 September 1974 for a period of 3 years.
He successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual
training in military occupational specialty 11B (light weapons
infantryman).

4.  On 24 June 1975, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for failure to repair.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture
of pay and extra duty.

5.  On 29 April 1975, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for failure to repair and violating a lawful general regulation
(possessing marijuana).  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, a
forfeiture of pay, and extra duty.

6.  Between 10 March 1975 and 24 June 1975, the applicant was counseled on
five occasions for various infractions which included not shaving, marginal
duty performance, possession of marijuana, personal appearance, and failure
to repair.

7.  On 26 June 1975, the applicant was notified of his pending separation
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-37,
under the Expeditious Discharge Program for failure to maintain acceptable
standards for retention.  The unit commander recommended separation with a
general discharge and cited the applicant's record of counseling and two
nonjudicial punishments.

8.  The applicant acknowledged notification of his proposed discharge,
voluntarily consented to discharge from the Army, and elected not to make a
statement on his behalf.  He also acknowledged that he might expect to
encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if issued a general
discharge and that he had been provided an opportunity to consult with
counsel.

9.  On 14 July 1975, the separation authority approved the recommendation
for separation and directed that the applicant be furnished a general
discharge.

10.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 23 July 1975 with a
general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter
5, paragraph 5-37, under the Expeditious Discharge Program for failure to
maintain acceptable standards for retention.  He had served 10 months and 8
days of total active service with 2 days of lost time due to excess leave.

11.  There is no evidence in the available records which shows the
applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year
statute of limitations.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set for the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  The pertinent
paragraph in Chapter 5 provided that members who had completed at least 6
months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first
enlistment and who had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet
acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of poor
attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt
socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential may
be discharged.  It provided for the expeditious elimination of substandard,
nonproductive Soldiers before board or punitive action became necessary.
No member would be discharged under this program unless he/she voluntarily
consented to the proposed discharge.  Issuance of an honorable discharge
certificate was predicated upon proper military behavior and proficient
performance of duty during the member's current enlistment with due
consideration for the member's age, length of service, grade and general
aptitude.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under
honorable conditions of an individual whose military record was not
sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

13.  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.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be
resolved in favor of the individual.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's separation under the Expeditious Discharge Program was
voluntary and the evidence shows he voluntarily consented to the discharge.

2.  The applicant's record of service included adverse counseling
statements and two nonjudicial punishments.  As a result, his record of
service 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 an honorable discharge.

3.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

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

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 23 July 1975; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 22
July 1978.  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

JM______  WP____  LO_____  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.




            __John Meixell________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050002920                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050908                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19750723                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 Chapter 5                    |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Expeditious Discharge Program           |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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