RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            19 September 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20060003715


      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 Anderholm               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Maribeth Love                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Thomas Ray                    |     |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, that the narrative reason for separation be changed to reflect
“downsizing” and that he receive credit for his entire 3-year enlistment.

2.  The applicant states that he was given nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for
being absent without leave (AWOL) when he was not AWOL.  He further states
that his first sergeant (1SG) was prejudiced against him and that he was
chaptered out of the Army for that NJP because he was unaware the he could
get help in matters involving discrimination.  He continues by stating that
the one NJP and racism were the reasons he was chaptered out of the Army,
not a pattern of misconduct.
3.  The applicant provides a statement regarding his application and a copy
of NJP Proceedings (DA Form 2627) with his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 15 April 1988.  The application submitted in this case was
received on 14 March 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 was born on 6 March 1964 and enlisted in the Regular Army
in New Haven, Connecticut on 2 July 1986 for a period of 3 years and
training as an administrative specialist.  He was transferred to Fort
Jackson, South Carolina to undergo all of his training.

4.  He completed his training and was transferred to Germany on 30 November
1986.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 May 1987.

5.  On 13 September 1987, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of
one specification of failure to repair, two specifications of violation of
a lawful general regulation and one specification of larceny.  He was
sentenced to be reduced to the pay grade of E-2 and confinement for 30
days.  He was transferred to the personnel confinement facility at Fort
Knox, Kentucky, to serve his confinement.  He was released from confinement
on 7 October 1987 and remained assigned to Fort Knox.

6.  On 11 January 1988, NJP was imposed against him for being absent
without leave (AWOL) from 4 January (Monday) to 6 January 1988.  His
punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, forfeiture of
$150.00 for 1 month, suspended until 11 July 1988, unless sooner vacated,
extra duty and restriction.  He did not appeal his punishment.  The
personnel actions submitted by the unit indicate that his duty status was
changed from present for duty to absence without leave.

7.  On 19 January 1988, the applicant was counseled by the first sergeant
regarding two specifications of reporting late for extra duty and for
departing extra duty without authority.

8.  On 25 January 1988, a Monday, the applicant was counseled by the first
sergeant regarding his breaking restriction and being apprehended by the
police for speeding and possible driving under the influence (DUI).  He
also counseled the applicant on being late for reporting to extra duty on
23 and 24 January 1988.
9.  On 27 January 1988, the commander vacated the suspended NJP punishment
of 11 January 1988 due to the applicant’s failure to go to his appointed
place of duty.

10.  On 28 January 1988, NJP was imposed against him for four
specifications of failure to go to his place of duty (extra duty) at the
designated time and breaking restriction.  His punishment consisted of a
reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and
restriction.  The applicant appealed his punishment and his appeal was
denied.

11.  On 2 February 1988, the first sergeant counseled the applicant in
regards to five dishonored checks written by the applicant to the post
exchange.  He also counseled the applicant on all previous disciplinary
actions, his previous counselings and his overall unsatisfactory conduct.
The applicant was advised that if his conduct continued, he would be
recommended for separation under the provisions of Army regulation 635-200,
chapter 14 for misconduct.

12.  On 17 February 1988, the first sergeant counseled the applicant on
falsifying documents, an incident in which he falsified a document to the
Motor Vehicle Driver’s Testing so he could obtain a Kentucky drivers
license.  The applicant indicated that his current drivers license had not
been suspended or revoked, a statement he knew to be false.

13.  On 18 March 1983, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was
initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct.  He cited as the basis
for his recommendation the applicant’s clearly established pattern of
misconduct through AWOL, breaking restriction, making false statements,
writing bad checks and repeated tardiness.  He also advised the applicant
that he was recommending that he be discharged under other than honorable
conditions.

14.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for a
conditional waiver in which he agreed to waive his rights to appear before
an administrative separation board contingent upon his receiving a general
discharge.

15.  On 6 April 1988, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation
for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge
Certificate.

16.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 15 April
1988, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for
misconduct – pattern of misconduct.  He had served 1 year, 8 months and 18
days of total active service and had 26 days of lost time due to
confinement by military authorities and AWOL.

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

18.  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.   The applicant’s allegations of discrimination and racism have been
noted; however, they are not supported by any evidence submitted by the
applicant or the evidence of record.  Therefore, lacking any creditable
evidence to support those allegations, there is no basis to address those
issues any further.

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 15 April 1988; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 14 April 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

____JA__  ___ML __  ___TR __  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 Anderholm ___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060003715                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/09/19                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(GD-UHC)                                |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1988/04/15                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200/CH15 . . . . .                |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |MISCONDUCT                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES                  |626/A60.00                              |
|1.144.6000              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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