RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            22 AUGUST 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20050016128


      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. Deyon D. Battle               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Linda Simmons                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Meixell                  |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Jerome Pionk                  |     |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 four separate applications, that his
discharge under other than honorable conditions, be upgraded to a general
discharge.  He also requests that his reason and authority for discharge be
changed.

2.  The applicant states that it has been over 25 years, and that he has
been an outstanding citizen in his community and to his country.  He states
that having his discharge upgraded and his reason and authority for
discharge changed will make his life complete.  He states that he has been
a police officer for the last 12 years and prior to that, he was in the
security field.  He states that he is currently a Department of Defense
officer at Fort Stewart, Georgia, and that all he is asking for is a clean
military record.  The applicant goes on to state that he made a mistake in
the early part of his life and he stole a camera while he was stationed in
Pusan, Korea, and it was not a wise move.  He states that he has been
fortunate enough to live a productive life within his home state and
county; that he be believes that everyone deserves a second chance in life;
and that he has proven that he can be a responsible citizen.

3.  The applicant provides in support of his application, a copy of a
letter written to a Congressman dated 29 October 2005, requesting his
assistance in getting his discharge upgraded; a copy of a certificate from
Armstrong State College, Regional Criminal Justice Training Center,
certifying that he successfully completed the Georgia Basic Law Enforcement
Training Course; a copy of a certificate from the State of Georgia, Peace
Officer Standards and Training Council; recognizing him for the
accomplishments of a Basic Peace Officer; a copy of a certificate from the
State of Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training Council recognizing
him for successfully fulfilling the prescribed requirements; a copy of a
letter recommendation from his District Representative dated 2 May 2005;
and copies of his Charge Sheet and additional documents pertaining to his
discharge that are currently maintained in his official military records.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

Counsel opines that the issues raised by the applicant on his Application
for Correction of Military Records reflect the probative facts needed for
an equitable review, and counsel rests this case on the evidence of record.




CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 17 September 1980.  The applications submitted in this
case are dated 29 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.  On 20 September 1979, he enlisted in the Army in Atlanta, Georgia, for
3 years, in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his training
as a military policeman.

4.  Nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on 20 November
1979, for being disrespectful in language toward his superior
noncommissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay
in the amount of $100.00, and 14 days of extra duty.

5.  He was transferred to the Republic of Korea on 30 January 1980, and he
was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 20 March 1980.  He was promoted to
the pay grade of E-3 on 1 July 1980.

6.  The applicant was assigned to the 552nd Military Police Company in
Korea, on 30 July 1980, when he was notified that charges were pending
against him for larceny of private property as a result of stealing a Canon
AE-1 Camera with a 50 millimeter lens, a value of approximately $421.59,
from the camera shop of a Korean National.

7.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and on 8 August
1980, after consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for discharge
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good
of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request for
discharge, he stated that he was only 19 years old and was never in any
trouble with the law before he enlisted in



the Army; that he grew up without a father; that after what happened, he
realized that his military career was over and as such he wished to spare
the Army the time and trouble of a trial; that efforts spent on him to be
rehabilitated would be a waste of the Army's resources; that he believed he
had no future in the Army any more; that he wanted to be able to go home
and to lead a normal, law abiding life; that he had no desire the become a
burden on the military or society; that he wanted to help support his
family and get back with his daughter; that he had destroyed what he
wanted, to be in a good profession; that remaining in the Army would just
be a waste of everybody's time and money; that he was sorry for what
happened and wished that he could change things; and that if he remained in
the Army, he believed that people would not trust him any longer.

8.  The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 13
August 1980, and recommended the issuance of a discharge under other than
honorable conditions.  However, on 26 August 1980, the applicant's counsel
filed a petition to withdraw the applicant's request for discharge stating
that although the request had been officially approved, the applicant had a
desire to fulfill his military commitment and pursue a military career;
that the applicant believed that he had the potential for further military
service, and rehabilitation in case he was convicted; and that the
applicant was only 19 years old and an other than honorable discharge would
severely handicap is future.

9.  The appropriate authority disapproved the petition for withdrawal of
the request for discharge on 26 August 1980.  Accordingly, on 26 August
1980, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions,
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good
of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed only
11 months and 28 days of his 3-year active duty service obligation.

10.  On 19 April 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the
applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides,
in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses
for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may
submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial
by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges
have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.
Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under
other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

12.  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.  The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing
that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute
allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion
requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens
that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on
the date of final action by the ADRB.  In complying with this decision, the
ABCMR has adopted the broader policy of calculating the 3-year time limit
from the date of exhaustion in any case where a lower level administrative
remedy is utilized.

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

3.  The applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time
of his offenses has been noted.  However, it is not sufficiently mitigating
to warrant relief.  The Board notes that there were other Soldiers of
similar age serving in Korea at the same time as the applicant that chose
not to commit larceny.

4.  While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant's age at the time
of his offense, and his good post-service conduct and employment; none of
these factors, either individually or in sum, warrant an upgrade of his
discharge.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with his overall
record of military service.

5.  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 this requirement.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.





7.  Records show the applicant exhausted his administrative remedies in
this case when his case was last reviewed by the ADRB on 19 April 1996.  As
a result, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of
any error or injustice to this Board expired on 18 April 1999.  However,
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

___LS  __  ___JM __  ____JP__  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.




                                  _____Linda Simmons_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050016128                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060822                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19800917                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |CHAPTER 10/FOR THE GOOD OF SERVICE      |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES         1.  689  |144.7000/FOR THE GOOD OF SERVICE        |
|2.  715                 |144.7200/LARCENY                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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