RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:      10 August 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050014994


      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. Curtis Greenway               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. James B. Gunlicks             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Peguine M. Taylor             |     |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 under honorable conditions
discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that when he was in the Army he
believes that he was bipolar and that he also suffered from Schizophrenia.
The applicant states, that he drank alcohol and he could not deal with his
thoughts or his feelings.  The applicant further states, that when he was
being discharged from service his First Sergeant told him that after 6
months his discharge would be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored letter in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 5 August 1976.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
1 October 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 14 March 1974 for a period of 3 years.  He
successfully completed the required training and was awarded military
occupational specialty 76Y10 (Unit Organization Supply Specialist and
Armorer).  The highest pay grade he attained was pay grade E-4.

4.  On 19 November 1974, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) for failure to go to his appointed place of duty on 26 and 27 October
1974.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1 (suspended
for 30 days), a forfeiture of $75.00 pay, and 14 days of restriction and
extra duty.

5.  On 17 March 1975, the applicant accepted NJP for failure to go to his
appointed place of duty.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay
grade E-1 (suspended for 2 months), a forfeiture of $75.00 pay, 14 days on
restriction and extra duty.

6.  On 15 June 1975, the applicant accepted NJP for failure to go at the
prescribed time to his appointed place of duty.  His imposed punishment was

7 days extra duty.

7.  On 6 May 1976, the applicant accepted NJP for failure to go at the
prescribed time to his appointed place of duty.  His imposed punishment was
14 days of extra duty.

8.  On 16 June 1976, his unit commander notified the applicant of his
intent to initiate action to separate him under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)
with a discharge under honorable conditions.  The reason for his proposed
action was the applicant’s inability to adapt socially, his lack of self
discipline, his inability to conform to military standards and his
inability to meet duty requirements.  The unit commander further informed
the applicant of the effects of a less than honorable discharge and the
rights available to him.

9.  On the same day, the applicant acknowledged notification of his
proposed separation action from the United States Army under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200 chapter 5-37 (EDP) and voluntarily consented to
this separation.  He acknowledged that he understood that his service would
be characterized as under honorable conditions and that he may expect to
encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.  He also acknowledged
that he was provided the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and was
advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, its effects
and of the rights available to him.  The applicant voluntarily consented to
the discharge and elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.

10.  On 26 July 1976, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
separation under the provisions of the EDP and directed the applicant
receive an Under Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.  On 5 August
1976, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 issued to
him upon his separation confirms he was separated under the provisions of
paragraph 5-37, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of failure to maintain
acceptable standards for retention.  It also shows that at the time of
discharge, he had completed a total of 1 year, 3 months and 13 days of
active military service.  This document further shows that during his
active duty tenure, the applicant earned the National Defense Service
Medal.

11.  The applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) contains no
medical records nor does the applicant provide any medical documents that
indicate he was treated for or suffered from a mental disorder while he was
on active duty, or at the time of his discharge.

12.  There is no indication in his military record that the applicant
applied for an upgrade of his discharge to the Army Discharge Review Board
(ADRB) within its 15 year statute of limitations.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5, then in effect, provided the
policy and outlined the procedures for separating individuals under the EDP
who demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards
required of enlisted personnel. An HD or GD could be issued under this
program.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The contentions of the applicant were carefully considered and found to
be insufficient in merit in warranting an upgrade of his discharge at this
time.  The applicant’s file was thoroughly reviewed and there was no
evidence nor did the applicant submit any evidence which supports any of
his allegations.

2.  The applicant’s contentions that he was told that he would receive an
upgrade within 6 months of his separation were carefully considered.
However, the Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to
automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits
when an applicant submits an application to the ADRB or this Board
requesting a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if either Board
determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge
or both were improper or inequitable.

3.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s discharge was
based on his inability to conform to military standards and his inability
to meet duty requirements.  There is no evidence in his military record nor
has the applicant provided any evidence to support his allegations.

4.  Therefore, the applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in
accordance with the applicable regulation in effect at the time.  All
requirements of law and regulation were met and that the applicant’s rights
were protected throughout the separation process.  The record further
confirms that the applicant voluntarily consented to the discharge and that
his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.

5.  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.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 5 August 1976.  Therefore, the time
for him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired
on 4 August 1979.  However, he failed to 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

___CG__  __JBG___  __PMT__  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.




                                  _____Curtis Greenway_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR                                      |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/08/10                              |
|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]