RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        20 DECEMBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050004173


      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. Gale J. Thomas                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Hise                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald Blakely                |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette McCants              |     |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 records be corrected by upgrading his
discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states that he would like to have his discharge upgraded
so that he can get a better job.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 25 August 1977.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 9 March 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 March 1975, for a
period of 4 years.  He completed basic and advanced individual training at
Fort Knox, Kentucky, and the remainder of his career was spent at Fort
Bliss, Texas.

4.  Between 3 June 1977 and 3 August 1977, the applicant was punished under
the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on three
occasions for disobeying a lawful order to get a hair cut, being absent
without leave from his place of duty on 2 June 1977, and for leaving his
place of duty without authority on 26 June 1977.  His punishments included
reduction, extra duty, and forfeitures of pay.

5.  On 9 June 1977, a mental status evaluation cleared the applicant for
separation.




6.  Documents in the applicant’s records indicate he was confined by
civilian authorities from 2 July 1977 to 8 July 1977 and charged with the
possession of narcotics.  After payment of a fine, he was released to
military authorities.  His records also show he was absent without leave
from 12 July 1977 to 14 July 1977.

7.  On 16 August 1977, the applicant was notified by his commander that he
was initiating action to discharge him from the service.  The reason for
his proposed actions was the applicant’s refusal to maintain any military
bearing or appearance, his constant absenteeism from his duty area, his
deliberate shirking of his duties, and his acting in an unsolderily manner.


8.  On 17 August 1977, the applicant acknowledged his commander’s intent to
discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-
37. He voluntarily consented to the discharge and elected not to submit a
statement on his own behalf.  He further acknowledged that he understood
that if issued a general discharge he may expect to encounter substantial
prejudice in civilian life.

9.  On 18 August 1977, the appropriate separation authority approved the
applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
paragraph 5-37, for failure to meet acceptable standards for continued
military service and directed the issuance of a general discharge with
service characterized as under honorable conditions.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-37 of the
regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the discharge of members under
the Expeditious
Discharge Program (EDP).  This program provided that an individual who had
completed at least 6 months, but less than 36 months of active duty and who
demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards
could be separated.  Such personnel were issued a general or honorable
discharge, as
appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  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.

2.  The actions by the Army in this case were proper and there is no doubt
to be resolved in favor of the applicant.
3.  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.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 25 August 1977; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
24 August 1980.  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

___JH___  __RB ___  ___JM __  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.




                                  _______James Hise_________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050004173                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051220                                |
|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]