RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         18 July 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050017625


      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             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Ernestine R. Fields           |     |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 general, under honorable
conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he wishes to have his GD upgraded
to an HD.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentary evidence in support of
his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 3 March 1987.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
5 December 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 initially enlisted in the Regular
Army and entered active duty on 18 January 1983.  He was trained in,
awarded, and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 52D (Power
Generation Equipment Repairer), and the highest rank he attained while
serving on active duty was specialist (SPC).

4.  The applicant's record shows that during his tenure on active duty, he
earned the Army Good Conduct Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Marksman
Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar, and the Expert
Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar.  His record documents no
acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special
recognition.  His disciplinary history includes his acceptance of non-
judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on two separate occasions, and formal
counseling on a myriad of performance and conduct related issues on seven
separate occasions between 17 September and
10 October 1986.
5.  On 29 August 1986, the applicant accepted NJP for being absent without
leave (AWOL) from 5 through 7 August 1986.  His punishment for this offense
was a forfeiture of $100.00 and 14 days of extra duty.  On 9 October 1986,
he accepted NJP for wrongfully using marijuana in the hashish form sometime
between 5 August and 15 August 1986.  His punishment for this offense was a
reduction to private (PV2)/E-2, and 45 days of restriction and extra duty.

6.  On 31 December 1986, the applicant's unit commander notified him that
separation action was being initiated on him under the provisions of
chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance.  The
commander cited the applicant's NJP history and his overall conduct as the
basis for taking the action.

7.  On 5 January 1987, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was
advised of the basis for the contemplated separation and its effects, the
rights available to him, and the effect of a waiver of those rights.
Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant elected not to submit a
statement in his own behalf.

8.  The separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the
provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, and directed that he
receive a GD.  On 3 March 1987, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant on the date
of his separation confirms he completed a total of 4 years, 1 month, and 16
days of active military service, and that held the rank of PV2 at the time.


9.  There is no indication that the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge
Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within the ADRB's 15-
year statute of limitations.

10.  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 record shows the applicant’s separation processing was accomplished
in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and
regulation were met, and his rights were fully protected throughout the
separation process.  Thus, it is concluded his GD was proper and equitable,
and that it accurately reflects his overall record of service.
2.  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.

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 3 March 1987.  Therefore, the time for
him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 2
March 1990. 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

___LE  __  ___PHM_  __ERF __  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.




                                  _____Lester Echols_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050017625                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/07/18                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1987/03/03                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 C13                          |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unsat Perf                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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