RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            18 MAY 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20050013537


      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. Jessie B. Strickland          |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Vick                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick McGann                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. William Crain                 |     |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 the narrative reason for his
separation on his report of separation (DD Form 214) be removed.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the failure to pay his just debts
was entirely due to his wife at the time.  He goes on to state that he had
a hearing at Fort Stewart at the time and his request to remain in the Army
was denied.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 with his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 13 September 1982.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 8 September 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.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 June 1973 for a period of 3
years, assignment to the 4th Infantry Division, and training as a track
vehicle mechanic. He completed his training at Fort Knox, Kentucky, and was
transferred to Fort Carson, Colorado.  He was advanced to the pay grade of
E-4 on 1 September 1974.

4.  He reenlisted on 12 February 1976 for a period of 5 years and a
selective reenlistment bonus (SRB).  He was transferred to Germany on 20
March 1976 and was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 19 June 1976.

5.  He completed his tour in Germany and was transferred to Fort Stewart,
Georgia, on 17 March 1979.

6.  On 7 July 1981, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him
for leaving his place of duty without authority and being found in his
privately owned vehicle (POV) asleep.  His punishment consisted of a
reduction to the pay grade of E-4 (suspended for 90 days) and 30 days extra
duty.

7.  On 3 March 1982, the applicant’s commander initiated action to bar the
applicant from reenlistment.  He cited the NJP imposed against the
applicant, notification of eight dishonored checks and the applicant’s
failure to respond to repeated counseling sessions as the basis for his
recommendation.  The applicant acknowledged the commander’s recommendation
and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.  However, after 3
weeks had passed, he still had not submitted a statement.  On 9 April 1982,
the battalion commander approved the bar to reenlistment.

8.  On 11 May 1982, NJP was imposed against him for uttering three bad
checks on 12, 19 and 20 March 1982.  His punishment consisted of a
reduction to the pay grade of E-4 and 45 days extra duty.

9.  The commander also initiated action to separate the applicant from the
service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for
misconduct based on his established pattern of showing dishonorable failure
to pay his just debts.

10.  The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and was deemed to
be mentally responsible.

11.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant elected to have his case
considered by a board of officers and to be represented by military
counsel.  He also elected to submit a statement in his own behalf whereas
he stated that he believed that he deserved an honorable discharge and
contended that his ex-wife was responsible for the bad checks and that he
had never written checks without money being in his account.  He also
stated that he had since divorced her, had remarried and was attempting to
gain custody of his child.

12.  The applicant appeared before a board of officers on 28 July 1982,
represented by counsel.  The applicant’s commander testified that the
applicant was a fair noncommissioned officer and mechanic and that he had
repeated incidents of indebtedness in which the creditors were constantly
calling the unit.  He went on to state that the chain of command spent a
great deal of time trying to help the applicant with his problems and that
the applicant simply would not respond to the attempts made by the chain of
command and that he had lied to the commander on several occasions
regarding the actions he had taken to satisfy his creditors.  He also
stated that he had delayed the separation action as long as he could
justify because he was attempting to resolve the problem himself before
taking such drastic action.  The remainder of his chain of command
essentially reiterated what the commander had said.

13.  The applicant testified to the effect that his commander did not
afford him the assistance he had claimed and that he currently only had one
outstanding debt.  He went on to state that he was paying alimony and child
support, that lawyer fees to fight the custody battle over his child were
extensive and that he believed that he was a good noncommissioned officer.
He also stated that he was doing everything he could to pay his debts and
that his mother was providing him assistance in that area.  He also stated
that he realized what he was doing when he wrote the bad checks but he was
trying to move into a place and keep food in the house.

14.  The bad checks were entered into evidence for the board members to
review and they were all signed by the applicant.

15.  After considering the evidence and testimony, the board found that the
applicant was undesirable for further retention in the military service
because of an established pattern of showing dishonorable failure to pay
just debts and recommended that he be discharged with an honorable
discharge.

16.  The appropriate authority approved the findings and recommendations of
the board on 2 September 1982 and directed that he be furnished an
Honorable Discharge Certificate.

17.  Accordingly, he was honorably discharged on 13 September 1982 under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b(3), for
misconduct – an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay
just debts.

18.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever
applied to the Army Discharge Review Board to change the narrative reason
for his separation within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

19.  Army Regulation 635-200, sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and
procedures for separating personnel for misconduct.  Specific categories
included minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, involvement in
frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military
authorities, failure to pay just debts, and commission of a serious
offense.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally
considered appropriate; however, a general or honorable discharge may be
furnished if deemed appropriate.


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 narrative reason issued to the applicant at the time of his
discharge was appropriate under the circumstances of his case and in
accordance with the applicable regulations in effect at the time.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted; however, they are not
sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to the evidence of
record and his overall record of service.

4.  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.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 13 September 1982; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 12 September 1985.  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

___JV___  __PM___  ___WC __  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.




                                  ____      James Vick_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050013537                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060518                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19820913                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, Para 14-33b(3)              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |MISCONDUCT-Failure to pay just debts    |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES                  |191/NARR RSN                            |
|1.110.0200              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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