RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        19 July 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050013058


      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. Judy L. Blanchard             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Vick                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Barbara J. Ellis              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Donald L. Lewy                |     |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 discharge, under honorable
conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect that he believes that his record is in
error or unjust because he was discharged for unsatisfactory performance.
He further states, that while stationed in Germany he received an award
from the Battalion Commander for an outstanding job for his participation
in Reforger and that he never received an Article 15.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214)
in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 12 August 1983.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
7 August 2005; however, was not received for processing until 6 September
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 record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 10 November 1981.  He was trained in and awarded
military occupational specialty (MOS) 36C (Wire System Installer /
Operator) and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was
pay grade E-3.  The record further shows that during his active duty
tenure, he earned the Army Service Ribbon and the Sharpshooter Marksmanship
      Qualification Badge with M-16 Rifle Bar.  The record documents no
acts of valor, significant achievement or service warranting special
recognition.

4.  Between January 1982 and June 1983, the applicant was formally
counseled on ten separate occasions for conduct and performance related
issues that included:  Verbal harassment of female Soldiers, indebtedness,
sleeping while on duty, failure to repair, and unsatisfactory performance
of his duties.

5.  On 17 June 1983, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ), for being absent without leave from 2 to 4 June 1983, for being
drunk while on duty, and for failure to go at the prescribed time to his
appointed place of duty.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay
grade E-1 (suspended for
3 months), a forfeiture of 7 days pay, and 14 days extra duty.

6.  On 27 June 1983, the applicant accepted NJP, for leaving his appointed
place of duty without proper authority.  His imposed punishment was a
reduction to pay grade E-1, 14 days restriction and extra duty.

7.  On 1 July 1983, the applicant accepted NJP, for leaving his appointed
place of duty without proper authority.  His imposed punishment was 14 days
restriction and extra duty.

8.  On 27 July 1983, the applicant received a Bar to Reenlistment
Certificate.  The Bar was based on the applicant’s record of NJPs and the
numerous counseling sessions for indebtedness.

9.  On 27 July 1983, a Mental Status Evaluation and a physical examination
cleared the applicant for separation.

10.  On 29 July 1983, the applicant’s unit commander notified the applicant
that he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of
chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory
performance with a General Discharge Certificate.

11.  On 30 July 1983, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was
advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, its effects
and of the rights available to him.  Subsequent to his counseling, he
waived his right to have his case considered by an administrative
separation board and he elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.

12.  On 1 August 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
discharge and directed that he receive an Under Honorable Condition
Discharge Certificate.  On 12 August 1983, the applicant was discharged
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for
unsatisfactory performance.  The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he
completed a total of 1 year and 9 months of active military service.
13.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army
Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year
statue of limitations.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and
outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory
performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate
a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member
will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further
training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The contention of the applicant was carefully considered and found to
be insufficient in merit.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s discharge processing
was accomplished in accordance with the governing regulation.  All
requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant
were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  The evidence of record also reveals that the applicant had a
disciplinary history of military infractions that ultimately led to his
discharge.  Therefore, given the circumstances in this case, there is
insufficient evidence to grant his request. Further, the applicant’s acts
of misconduct clearly diminished the overall quality of his service below
that meriting an honorable discharge.

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 12 August 1983; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
11 August 1986.  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

__JEV___  __BJE___  __DLL__  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 E. Vick____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR                                      |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/07/19                              |
|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.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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