RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        13 July 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050017792


      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. Wanda L. Waller               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Robert Osborn                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Moeller                  |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Naomi Henderson               |     |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 general discharge be upgraded to
honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he contracted hepatitis C during his
stint in the Army while assigned to a dental clinic in Germany.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 26 August 1981.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 3 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 enlisted on 8 January 1980 for a period of 4 years.  He
successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training in
military occupational specialty 76J (medical supply specialist).

4.  On 19 May 1981, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for four specifications of failure to repair.  His punishment
consisted of a reduction to E-2 (suspended), a forfeiture of pay, and a
verbal reprimand.  On
19 May 1981, the suspended portion of the applicant’s sentence was vacated.


5.  On 2 June 1981, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for violating a lawful general regulation, failure to repair, and
operating a vehicle while drunk.  His punishment consisted of a reduction
to E-1, a forfeiture of pay, and a verbal reprimand.

6.  Between 12 February 1981 and 1 July 1981, the applicant was counseled
on numerous occasions for various infractions which included failure to
report for duty, being late for duty, and being absent without leave from
his place of duty.

7.  The applicant was notified of his pending separation under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, under the
Expeditious Discharge Program for failure to maintain acceptable standards
for retention.  The unit commander recommended separation with a general
discharge and cited the applicant's poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack
of self discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, and his
failure to demonstrate promotion potential.

8.  The applicant underwent a separation physical examination on 1 July
1981 and was found qualified for separation.

9.  On 29 July 1981, the applicant acknowledged notification of his
proposed discharge, voluntarily consented to discharge from the Army, and
elected not to make a statement on his behalf.  He also acknowledged that
he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if
issued a general discharge and that he had been provided an opportunity to
consult with counsel.

10.  On 31 July 1981, the separation authority approved the recommendation
for separation and directed that the applicant be furnished a general
discharge.

11.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 26 August 1981 with a
general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
paragraph 5-31, under the Expeditious Discharge Program for failure to
maintain acceptable standards for retention.  He had served 1 year, 7
months, and 19 days of total active service.

12.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant was diagnosed
with hepatitis C prior to his discharge.

13.  There is no evidence in the available records which shows the
applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year
statute of limitations.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set for the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  The pertinent
paragraph in Chapter
5 provided that members who had completed at least 6 months but less than
36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who
had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards
required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of
motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or
emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential may be
discharged.  It provided for the expeditious elimination of substandard,
nonproductive Soldiers before board or punitive action became necessary.
No member would be discharged under this program unless he/she voluntarily
consented to the proposed discharge.  Issuance of an honorable discharge
certificate was predicated upon proper military behavior and proficient
performance of duty during the member's current enlistment with due
consideration for the member's age, length of service, grade and general
aptitude.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under
honorable conditions of an individual whose military record was not
sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable
discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits
provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the
quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis
added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization
would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be
resolved in favor of the individual.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's separation under the Expeditious Discharge Program was
voluntary and the evidence shows he voluntarily consented to the discharge.

2.  Since the applicant's record of service included numerous counseling
statements and two nonjudicial punishments, his record of service did not
meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army
personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently
meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

3.  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.

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

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 26 August 1981; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 25
August 1984.  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

RO_____  JM_____  _NH_____  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.




                                  ____Robert Osborn_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050017792                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060713                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19810826                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 Paragraph 5-31               |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Expeditious Discharge Program           |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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