RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        25 July 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050018284


      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. Beverly A. Young              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Allen Raub                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. LaVerne Douglas               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Peguine 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 that his general under honorable conditions
discharge be changed to honorable and that his narrative reason be changed.


2.  The applicant states he is requesting that his discharge be changed
from general to honorable because this would allow him to qualify for
additional points on city, state, and federal applications.  It may also
allow him to be eligible for educational assistance.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 23 December 1983.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 27 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 in the Regular Army on 5 October 1982 for a
period of three years.  He completed basic training and advanced individual
training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76Y (Unit Supply
Specialist).  He was advanced to private E-2 on 1 May 1983.

4.  During June 1983 and August 1983, the applicant received six adverse
counseling statements for writing a bad check; for falling out of formation
without being told; for not sewing down his nametag as instructed; for not
reporting to the First Sergeant; for his lack of work and effort; for
failure to properly shine boots as told to by his chain of command; and for
missing formation.

5.  On 31 August 1983, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to go to
his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of 7 days
correctional custody and a reduction to the grade of private E-1.

6.  He also received two adverse counseling statements, on 7 September 1983
and 20 October 1983, for possible separation from military service and for
being late to guard mount on three separate occasions.

7.  A bar to reenlistment was imposed against the applicant on 25 October
1983. The unit commander cited the basis for the bar to reenlistment as the
applicant's two Article 15s.  The unit commander indicated that the
applicant’s behavior displayed a definite disregard for military directives
and authority as listed in the Article 15s and counseling statements.

8.  On 3 November 1983, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under
Article 15, UCMJ for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  His
punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $250.00 a month for 2 months and 45
days extra duty.

9.  On 30 November 1983, the applicant's unit commander notified him of his
proposed recommendation to discharge him under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-2 for unsatisfactory performance.  He was
advised of his rights.

10.  The applicant acknowledged notification, consulted with legal counsel
and did not submit statements in his own behalf.

11.  On 15 December 1983, the separation authority approved the
recommendation for separation, waived rehabilitation requirements, and
directed issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

12.  The applicant was discharged on 23 December 1983 under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He
had completed 1 year, 2 months, and 19 days of active military service.

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

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for
administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of this
regulation, in effect at the time, provides for separation due to
unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment the individual
will not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention will have an adverse
impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member
will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will
continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform
effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or
leadership, is unlikely.  Service of Soldiers separated because of
unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as
honorable or under honorable conditions.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 governs the separation of enlisted personnel.
In pertinent part, it states that an honorable discharge is a separation
with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality
of the Soldier's
service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and
performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that
any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Where there
have been infractions of discipline, the extent thereof should be
considered, as well as the seriousness of the offense(s).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 was accomplished in compliance with
applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would
tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The applicant's service record shows he received two Article 15s, a bar
to reenlistment, and several adverse counseling statements.  As a result,
his record of service was not honorable and 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 has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the
evidence of record that the type of discharge and narrative reason issued
to him was in error or unjust.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 23 December 1983; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 22 December 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

AR______  LD______  PT______  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.




                                  Allen Raub____________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050018284                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060725                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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