RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        24 August 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060000591


      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. G. E. Vandenberg              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Jeanette R. McCant            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Scott W. Faught               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Rowland  C. Heflin            |     |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 that he was told that after six months the
discharge would be converted to honorable.  He served his country and
deserves an honorable discharge.

3.  The applicant provides no additional supporting documentation.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 3 October 1980, the date of his discharge.  The
application submitted in this case is dated 12 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 records show the applicant enlisted in the Oklahoma Army National
Guard (OKARNG) on 8 April 1978.  He served on initial active duty for
training from 30 April 1978 through 27 October 1978.  He was released from
active duty and transferred back to the OKARNG.

4.  The applicant was ordered to active duty on 29 August 1979.  The reason
for this activation is not of record.

5.  Between 23 April 1980 and 13 July 1980 the applicant received four
negative counseling sessions for sleeping on guard post, failure to be at
his appointed place of duty, failure to obey written and verbal orders,
being out of uniform, and not maintaining his personal hygiene or keeping
his personal area clean and orderly.

6.  On 18 August 1980 his unit commander initiated separation proceedings
for an inability to conform to military life under Army Regulation 635-200,
paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program).
7.  After consulting with military counsel, the applicant acknowledged the
proposed separation and voluntarily consented to the separation.  He
acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice, that if his service was characterized as
under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) he could expect to experience
substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received an UOTHC discharge,
and that there is no automatic review or upgrading of his discharge.  Any
request for an upgrade would have to be made to the Army Discharge Review
Board and he could not apply for reenlistment for two years.  He elected
not to provide a statement on his own behalf.

8.  The discharge authority approved the separation and directed that the
applicant be discharged under honorable conditions.

9.  The applicant was discharged on 3 October 1980 under Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 5 for failure to maintain acceptable standards for
retention.  He had 1 year, 1 month, and 5 days of creditable service; 5
months and 28 days of prior active duty; and 10 months and 23 days of
inactive service.

10.  There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board within its 15-year statutory limit for review.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides the policy and sets forth the
procedure for administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5,
as then in effect, provided, in pertinent part, for the Expeditious
Discharge Program (EDP).  This program provided that an individual who had
completed at least 6 months, but less than 36 months of active duty and who
demonstrated (by poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-
discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally or failure to
demonstrate promotion potential) that they could not or would not meet
acceptable standards could be separated.  Such personnel were issued a
general or honorable discharge, as appropriate, except that a
recommendation for a general discharge had to be initiated by the immediate
commander and the individual had to consult with legal counsel.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, sets forth the policies and procedures for
enlisted personnel separations.  Chapter 3, as in effect at that time,
outlines the criteria for characterization of service.  Paragraph 3-7a
states that an honorable discharge (HD) is a separation with honor.  The
honorable characterization of service is appropriate when the quality of
the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct
and performance of duty.  Paragraph 3-7b
state that a general discharge (GD) is a separation under honorable
conditions issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but
not so meritorious as to warrant an honorable discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and
regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is
commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2.  There is not now nor has there ever been any authority to automatically
upgrade a discharge under the regulations used to discharge the applicant.
In fact the applicant acknowledged that any request for an upgrade had to
made to the Army Discharge Review Board within 15 years of his separation.

3.  The applicant demonstrated that he was unable to adapt to military life
and he failed to meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance
of duty to warrant a fully honorable discharge.

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.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 3 October 1980; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 2 October 1983.  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

_JRM ___  __RCH__  __SWF__  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.




                            __    Jeanette R. McCant_________
                                      CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060000591                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060824                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |. . . . .                               |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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