RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         3 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060003647


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Kenneth L. Wright             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas M. Ray                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Sherry J. Stone               |     |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 general, under honorable
conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his discharge was based on his
mishandling of his checking account and collection agencies contacting his
commander.  He claims he was immature and inexperienced in handling a
checking account, and had he been counseled and taught how to properly
manage a checking account and his finances, he would have been able to
continue his military service.  He states that he has matured, and has not
repeated the errors he made in his youth.  He further states that he has
been a responsible citizen since his discharge and it would be unjust for
him to continue to be punished for his youthful mistakes.

3.  The applicant provides employment reviews, third-party support
statements, a bank statement, and criminal records check in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 2 September 1987, the date of his separation from active
duty.  The application submitted in this case is dated 21 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's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 14 January 1986, after having completed 1 year, 11
months, and 21 days of military service in the United States Army Reserve
(USAR).

4.  The applicant's record shows that during his active duty tenure, he
earned the Army Service Ribbon and the Sharpshooter Marksmanship
Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar, and that he was promoted to private
first class (PFC) on
14 January 1986.  His record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement, or service warranting special recognition.
5.  The applicant's disciplinary history includes his acceptance of non-
judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on two separate occasions, extensive formal
counseling on a myriad of conduct and discipline matters by members of his
chain of command between 18 September 1986 and 15 June 1987, and the
imposition of a bar to reenlistment based on his failure to pay just debts.


6.  On 10 February 1987, a bar to reenlistment was imposed on the applicant
based on his nonpayment of just debts.

7.  The applicant accepted NJP for disobeying a lawful order on 10 June
1987.  His punishment for this offense was a reduction to private (PV2)/E-2
and 7 days of extra duty.

8.  On 8 July 1987, the applicant accepted NJP for being disrespectful in
language toward a superior noncommissioned officer (NCO) in the execution
of his office.  His punishment for this offense was reduction to private
(PV1)/E-1 and
14 days of extra duty.

9.  On 13 August 1987, the unit commander notified the applicant of his
intent to initiate action to separate him under the provisions of chapter
14, Army Regulation 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct.  The unit
commander cited the applicant's numerous dishonored checks and his
disrespect toward NCOs as the basis for taking the action.

10.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the
basis for the contemplated separation action, its effects, and of the
rights available to him. Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant
elected to voluntarily waive his right to consideration of his case by a
board of officers contingent on his receiving a GD.  He also acknowledged
that he understood he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian
life if he received a GD, and that as a result of receiving this discharge,
he could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both
Federal and State law.

11.  The applicant also acknowledged that he was informed he could make
application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or this Board for an
upgrade of his discharge; however, he realized that an act of consideration
by either board did not imply that his discharge would be upgraded.

12.  On 21 August 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant's
separation under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, by
reason of a pattern of misconduct, and directed he receive a GD.  On
2 September 1987, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form
214 he was issued at the time shows he completed a total of 1 year, 11
months, and 21 days of active military service, and held the rank of PV1 at
the time.

13.  The applicant provides performance evaluations and supporting
statements from employers that attest to his good post service employment
record.  He also provides a letter from his landlord that attests to his
timely payment of rent, and letters from his roommate and friends that
attest to his good character.  The applicant also provides a letter from
his bank that confirms his account is in good standing, and a criminal
records check that confirms he has no criminal record.

14.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the ADRB for an
upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of
limitations.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes
policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.
Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of
misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil
authorities.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when
it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is
unlikely to succeed.  Although an honorable discharge (HD) or GD may be
issued, an UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged
under this chapter.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his discharge was too harsh, and that
the actions that led to his discharge were the result of his immaturity,
and the supporting documents he submitted, were carefully considered.
However, the record confirms he was over 21 years old, and had successfully
completed training and been advanced to the rank of PFC prior to committing
the misconduct that led to his discharge.  Further, the record shows he
received extensive counseling on his financial mismanagement by members of
his chain of command.  As a result, there is insufficient evidence to
support his claims.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant's separation processing
was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All
requirements of law and regulation were met, and his rights were fully
protected throughout the separation process.  In addition, he was separated
with a GD under terms of his own conditional waiver.

3.  Although the applicant's post service conduct has been admirable, this
factor alone does not provide a sufficient evidentiary basis to support
granting the requested relief.  The applicant's separation processing was
based on his displaying a pattern of misconduct, which did not only include
his financial mismanagement, but also his disrespect toward NCOs and other
conduct and performance issues.

4.  Further, normally Soldiers separated for misconduct receive an under
other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge; however, in this case,
the applicant received a GD based on his overall record of service, which
was a recognition of the honorable service he completed.  However, his
misconduct clearly diminished the overall quality of his service below that
meriting a fully honorable discharge.  Therefore, his GD accurately
reflects the overall character of his service.

5.  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.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 2 September 1987, the date of his
discharge.  Therefore, the time for him to file a request for correction of
any error or injustice expired on 1 September 1990.  He failed to 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

___KLW _  __TMR__  __SJS __  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.




                                  _____Kenneth L. Wright____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060003647                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/10/03                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1987/09/02                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 C14                          |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Misconduct                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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