RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        26 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050018353


      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:

|     |Ms. Marla Troup                   |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert Rogers                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. John Heck                     |     |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 first enlistment and his
inactive service be shown on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty).  He requests that a DA Form 1695 (Oath of
Extension of Enlistment), dated 12 October 1979, be corrected to show he
enlisted on
27 October 1976 and not on 27 November 1976.  He also requests that entries
on his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) be corrected.

2.  The applicant requests that he be issued an Honorable Discharge
Certificate for his service from 27 October 1976 through 27 November 1979.

3.  The applicant further requests that his discharge under other than
honorable conditions be upgraded.

4.  The applicant states, in effect, that his service is listed as 27
October 1976 to 7 October 1981 on his DD Form 214; however, he feels both
terms of service should be shown on it.  He states that his Reserve time is
not shown on his DD Form 214; that his enlistment date is incorrect on his
DA Form 1695; and that the entry in item 4 on his DA Form 2-1 should not
have been removed.  He claims he should have been awarded MOS 74B (card and
tape writer) because representatives from IBM taught him this MOS when the
Army did not offer training of any kind.  He contends that he had to learn
MOS 74B10 on the job and that he never received any school training for MOS
71L (administrative specialist) or MOS 73C (finance specialist) as
reflected on his DA Form 2-1.  He states the Army did him a disservice by
not training him correctly for any job he held.  He further states that he
was not given an Honorable Discharge Certificate for his first enlistment
and that his reenlistment date of 28 November 1979 in primary MOS 71L20 is
not listed in his DA Form 2-1.

5.  The applicant also states, in effect, that he was not always a very
good Soldier, that he went to a court-martial and took some bad advice, and
that he should have taken the Article 15.  He contends that he got married
and his military career was not the same because of not being with his
family, that he learned all of his MOSs on the job and the military never
trained him, and that he felt substandard to his peers who had been trained
in MOS 73C and MOS 71L.  He contends that his bar to reenlistment should
not have been imposed, that he was in debt but so was his wife, and that he
was singled out.  He states that he made some bad mistakes.

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


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of alleged errors which occurred
on
7 October 1981.  The application submitted in this case is dated 22
February 2006.

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 U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 19 October
1976 for a period of 6 years.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 27
October 1976 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed basic
combat training and he was awarded MOS 74B.

4.  On 19 October 1978, contrary to his plea, the applicant was convicted
by a special court-martial of failure to repair.  He was sentenced to
forfeit $100 and to be reduced to E-2.  On 31 October 1978, the convening
authority approved the sentence.

5.  On 12 October 1979, the applicant extended his enlistment for a period
of 3 months.  His DA Form 1695 incorrectly shows his enlistment date as
27 November 1976.

6.  The applicant was honorably discharged on 27 November 1979.  He
reenlisted on 28 November 1979 for a period of 3 years.  Orders, dated
13 February 1980, show the applicant was awarded primary MOS 71L effective
1 September 1979 and primary MOS 74B was withdrawn.  Orders, dated 28 May
1980, show the applicant was awarded primary MOS 73C and secondary MOS 71L
and primary MOS 71L was withdrawn effective 13 June 1980.

7.  On 1 October 1980, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for disorderly conduct and two specifications of failure to
repair.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended), a
forfeiture of pay, and correctional custody.

8.  On 29 October 1980, a bar to reenlistment was imposed against the
applicant.

9.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are
not contained in the available records.  However, the Army Discharge Review
Board (ADRB) Proceedings state that on 21 August 1981 charges were
preferred against the applicant for uttering ten bad checks.  The applicant
consulted with counsel on 27 August 1981 and requested discharge under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the
service.  He submitted a statement on his own behalf.  In summary, he
outlined his military service and accomplishments from the time he first
enlisted, adding that he had been unduly humiliated by his first sergeant
and commanding officer, and felt that he had been punished very badly.

10.  On 10 September 1981, the separation authority approved the
applicant’s request and directed that he be furnished a discharge under
other than honorable conditions.

11.  The applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on
7 October 1981 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10,
for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial.  He had served a
total of 4 years, 11 months, and 21 days of total creditable active
service.

12.  Item 12e (Total Prior Inactive Service) on the applicant’s DD Form 214
shows he completed 8 days of inactive service.  Since the applicant’s USAR
service (19 October 1976 through 26 October 1976 - 8 days) is shown in item
12e on his DD Form 214, this portion of the applicant’s request will not be
discussed further in these Proceedings.

13.  Item 18 (Remarks) on his DD Form 214 shows the entry, “IMMEDIATE
REENLISTMENT THIS PERIOD:  761027-791127.  NOTHING FOLLOWS.”  Since the
applicant’s first enlistment is shown in item 18 on his DD Form 214, this
portion of the applicant’s request will not be discussed further in these
Proceedings.

14.  The applicant's DA Form 2-1 was reviewed and authenticated by the
applicant on 10 March 1981.

15.  On 25 April 1983, the ADRB denied the applicant’s request for a
general discharge.

16.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) states, in pertinent
part, that a DD Form 214 will not be issued for enlisted members discharged
for immediate reenlistment in the Regular Army.  The regulation also
states, in pertinent part, that a DD Form 256A (Honorable Discharge
Certificate) will be issued to all Soldiers receiving an honorable
discharge.
17.  Army Regulation 640-10 (Individual Military Personnel Records) states
the Military Personnel Records Jacket [and documents filed within that
record] will be continued in use as long as a member has a status within an
Army component.

18.  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.

19.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, 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.

20.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general
discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When
authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory
but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A
characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the
reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such
characterization.

21.  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 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 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.  Since the applicant contends that he was not given an Honorable
Discharge Certificate for his first enlistment, and the governing
regulation does not prohibit the re-issuance of a DD Form 256A, it would be
appropriate to issue a DD Form 256A to the applicant for his honorable
service from 27 October 1976 through
27 November 1979.

2.  Evidence of record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on
27 October 1976.  His enlistment date is incorrect on his DA Form 1695.
Therefore, it would be appropriate to correct his enlistment date to show
27 October 1976 on this form.

3.  The DA Form 2-1 was prepared and maintained for Active Army and U.S.
Reserve Component personnel in an active status.  The applicant no longer
has a military status.  He signed the DA Form 2-1 on 10 March 1981.
Therefore, the Board is reluctant to recommend that those records be
changed.  The DD Form 214 is the document used to record the military
history of a separated individual.

4.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial,
was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable
regulations.

5.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

6.  Since the applicant’s record of service included one nonjudicial
punishment, an offense punishable by court-martial, and a bar to
reenlistment during his second enlistment (his court-martial during his
first enlistment should not have been and is not now a consideration in
determining the equity of his under other than honorable conditions
discharge of 7 October 1981), his record of service was not satisfactory
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 a general or honorable discharge.

7.  Records show the applicant exhausted his administrative remedies in
this case when his case was reviewed by the ADRB on 25 April 1983.  As a
result, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any
error or injustice to this Board expired on 24 April 1986.  The applicant
did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations; however, based on
the available argument, it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
failure to timely file in this case.


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

MT____  __RR____  _JH_____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely
file.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army
records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

      a.  amending his DA Form 1695 to show his enlistment date was
27 October 1976; and

      b.  issuing him a DD Form 256A for his enlistment ending 27 November
1979.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
amending entries on his DA Form 2-1 or upgrading his discharge under other
than honorable conditions.



                                  ___Marla Troup_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050018353                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061026                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |100.0000                                |
|2.                      |144.0000                                |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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