RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            14 September 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20060001827


      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. Eric Anderson                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Rose Lys                      |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Richard Murphy                |     |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 enlisted at the age of 17 and did not care
about the consequences of his actions.  He further states that although he
was only 17 at the time, he feels that because of one mistake, he was not
given the chance he needed to do the right thing.  He also states that he
believes that if he had been given the chance he needed, he would have made
a very good Soldier and would have done his best to do the right thing.  He
continues by stating that it was not until 5 years ago that he realized his
full potential and he is now at a point where he will do everything he can
for his family.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents with his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 13 June 1988.  The application submitted in this case is dated
25 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.  He was born on 15 October 1968 and enlisted in the Regular Army with
parental consent on 8 January 1986 for a period of 3 years, training as an
armor crewman, and assignment to Europe.  He underwent his one-station unit
training (OSUT) at Fort Knox, Kentucky.

4.  On 14 February 1986, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against
him for disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer
(NCO) to refrain from smoking in the bathroom.  His punishment consisted of
a forfeiture of pay, extra duty, and restriction.

5.  He completed his training and was transferred to Baumholder, Germany on
12 May 1986 and was assigned to an armor company.  He was advanced to the
pay grade of E-2 on 8 July 1986.

6.  Although not explained in the available records, the applicant was
reduced to the pay grade of E-1 on 1 August 1986.

7.  He was again advanced to the pay grade of E-2 on 8 January 1987 and on
22 April 1987, he was transferred to another company within the battalion.
He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 October 1987.

8.  On 19 January 1988, NJP was imposed against him for stealing currency
belonging to American Express Bank Limited in the amount of $775.10.  His
punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2 (suspended
until 19 July 1988), a forfeiture of pay (suspended until 19 July 1988),
extra duty, and restriction.  However, on 27 January 1988, he disobeyed a
lawful order from a superior NCO and the commander vacated his suspended
punishments.

9.  On 4 April 1988, NJP was imposed against him for stealing 100 cassette
tapes from another Soldier.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the
pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, extra duty, and restriction.

10.  On 14 April 1988, he underwent a mental status evaluation and the
examining official determined that he had the mental capacity to understand
and participate in administrative discharge proceedings.

11.  A review of his record shows that during the period of 29 October 1987
to
25 April 1988, the applicant was formally counseled on at least seven
occasions for a variety of issues which include, but are not limited, to
his failure to maintain his living area; lack of personal hygiene;
repeatedly departing his duty section without authority; his lack of
initiative, self-discipline, and physical fitness; failure to repair;
disobeying officers and noncommissioned officer; being disrespectful
towards officers and noncommissioned officers; lying to officers and
noncommissioned officers; destruction of government property; and breaking
restriction.

12.  On 3 May 1988, the applicant’s commander initiated action to discharge
the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-
200, paragraph 14-12c for misconduct – pattern of misconduct.  He cited as
the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s disciplinary record and
his repeated
failure to respond to counseling and rehabilitation.  He also cited the
applicant’s repeated failure to obey orders, failure to be at his place of
duty, and lying to both commissioned and noncommissioned officers.

13.  The applicant waived all of his rights, to include consulting with
counsel and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

14.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on
9 May 1988 and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge
Certificate.

15.  Accordingly, he was returned to Fort Jackson, South Carolina where he
was discharged under honorable conditions on 13 June 1988.  He had served
2 years, 5 months, and 6 days of total active service.

16.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever
applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge
within that board’s 15-years statute of limitations.

17.  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, and commission of a serious offense.  A discharge under other
than honorable conditions is normally considered 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.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore
were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board; however, they
are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his
overall record of undistinguished service, his repeated misconduct, and his
repeated failure to respond to counseling and rehabilitation attempts by
his chain of command.  The applicant was afforded numerous opportunities to
rehabilitate himself and to prove himself to be a good Soldier and yet
chose not to do so.  Accordingly, his service does not rise to the level of
fully honorable 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 June 1988; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 12 June 1991.  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

__EA  ___  ___RL __  ___RM__  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.




                                  ______Eric Anderson_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060001827                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060914                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(GD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1988/06/13                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200/ch14 . . . . .                |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Misconduct                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES                  |626/a60.00                              |
|1.144.6000              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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