RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        8 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050003342


      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. Beverly A. Young              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Stanley Kelley                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Diane Armstrong               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Delia 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 that his time in service be corrected on his DD
Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).  In
addition, he requests that his general under honorable conditions discharge
be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states that his general discharge was unjust.

3.  The applicant provides a supplemental letter.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 14 March 1986.  The application submitted in this case is dated
8 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 limitations 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 complete military records are not available to the
Board for review.  However, there were sufficient documents remaining in a
reconstructed record for the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review
of this case.

4.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 June 1978.  He
continued to serve on active duty through a series of reenlistments.

5.  On 23 December 1985, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment
under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to go to his
appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of reduction to the
grade of E-4 and a forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 2 months.

6.  A DA Form 2627-2 (Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15,
UCMJ) dated 13 February 1986 shows the suspension of the punishment of a
forfeiture of $200.00 per month for 2 months, imposed on the applicant on
17 January 1986 was vacated.  The Article 15 dated 17 January 1986 is not
available.  The DA Form 2627-2 indicated that the vacation was based on the
offense of wrongfully communicating a threat to a staff sergeant on 23
December 1985 and being disrespectful towards a noncommissioned officer.

7.  On 14 February 1986, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment
under Article 15 for wrongfully communicating a threat to a staff sergeant.
 His punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-3.

8.  The applicant's discharge packet is not available.  However, he was
issued a DD Form 214 which shows he was discharged from active duty on
14 March 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-
12b for misconduct – pattern of misconduct.  He completed 7 years, 8
months, and
29 days of creditable active service during the period under review.  He
had a total of 13 years, 8 months, and 24 days active military service.

9.  In a 30 December 1998 letter, the Army Board for Correction of Military
Records (ABCMR) informed the applicant that his DD Form 214 currently
reflected a combined total of 13 years, 8 months, and 24 days of active
military service (to include 7 years, 8 months, and 29 days for the period
covered by the report and 5 years, 11 months, and 25 days total prior
active service).  Since his DD Form 214 correctly reflected his active duty
service, there was no further action taken by the Board.

10.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant applied to
the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 established
policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct.
Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of
misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil
authorities.  Action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct
when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impracticable or
was unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions
was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.
However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is
merited by the Soldier’s overall record.  Only a general court-martial
convening authority may approve an honorable discharge or delegate approval
authority for an honorable discharge under this provision of regulation.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 governs the separation of enlisted personnel.
In pertinent part, it states that an honorable discharge is a separation
with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality
of the Soldier's
service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and
performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that
any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Where there
have been infractions of discipline, the extent thereof should be
considered, as well as the seriousness of the offense(s).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary it is presumed that the
applicant's administrative discharge proceedings were conducted in
accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.

2.  The applicant's service record shows he received three Article 15s
during the period under review.

3.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally
appropriate for a Soldier discharged under chapter 14 for misconduct.  It
appears the separation authority determined that the applicant's overall
service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of
duty to warrant an honorable discharge, but it was sufficient to warrant a
general discharge.

4.  The applicant's statements were carefully reviewed; however, he has
provided no evidence other than his self-authored statements that the type
of discharge issued to him was in error or unjust.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 14 March 1986; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
13 March 1989.  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

SK______  DA______  DT______  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.




                                  Stanley Kelley________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050003342                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051108                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |100.0200                                |
|2.                      |144.0000                                |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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