RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        17 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060001027


      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. Karl L. Briales               |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Peter B. Fisher               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Roland 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, under honorable conditions
discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states that he was unjustly discharged because of
emotional problems.

3.  The applicant did not provide additional documentary evidence in
support of this application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 2 September 1976.  The application submitted in this case
is dated 10 January 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 evidence of record shows that, on 6 October 1975, the applicant
enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of three years.  He was trained
in, awarded, and served in military occupational specialty 91B10 (Medical
Specialist).

4.  The applicant's record documents that the highest permanent rank he
held on active duty was private/E-2 and the record contains no documented
acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

5.  On 29 April 1976, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
for being disrespectful towards his superior noncommissioned officer.  His
punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $200.00 per month for 1 month and
30 days of extra duty.

6.  On 6 July 1976, the applicant accepted NJP for wrongfully having in his
possession a controlled substance.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture
of $100.00 per month for 2 months.

7.  On 10 August 1976, the unit commander notified the applicant that he
was initiating action to discharge the applicant from the service under the
provisions of the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).  The unit commander
indicated that his specific reasons for initiating separation action were:
the applicant's lack of motivation and self-discipline, and his inability
to adapt socially and emotionally to military service.

8.  On 10 August 1976, the applicant voluntarily consented to elimination
under the EDP.  Accordingly, on 2 September 1976, the applicant was
discharged under the provisions of the EDP with a general, under honorable
conditions discharge.  He was credited with 10 months and 27 days of active
military service.

9.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of
limitations.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations), then in
effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted
personnel.  Paragraph 5-37 provides, in part, for the discharge of enlisted
personnel whose performance of duty and potential for continued effective
service fall below the standards required in the Army.  Individuals
discharged under this regulation could be issued a general or honorable
discharge.

11.  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 requests that his general, under honorable conditions
discharge be upgraded to honorable because he contends he was unjustly
discharged because of emotional problems.

2.  There is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant failed
to provide evidence to show he suffered from, or was treated for, emotional
problems.  This contention is not supported by the facts in this case.

3.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The applicant voluntarily
accepted discharge under the provisions of the EDP in lieu of disciplinary
or administrative separation under other provisions of law or regulations.

4.  In the applicant's relatively short period of service, he accepted NJP
on two separate occasions.  The applicant's chain of command attempted to
assist and rehabilitate him through the imposition of NJP; however, the
applicant did not respond appropriately to these attempts.  The unit
commander appropriately determined that the applicant lacked motivation to
successfully complete his military obligation.

5.  Given the above, the applicant's service did not meet the standards of
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel and he is not
entitled to fully honorable discharge.

6.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant did not submit any evidence that would
satisfy this requirement.

7.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 2 September 1976; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
1 September 1979.  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

__jtm___  __pbf___  __rch___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.




                                        John T. Meixell
                                  ______________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060001027                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061017                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(GD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19760902                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, Chap 5                      |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.2400                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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