RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        28 September 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060003725


      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             |
|     |Ms. Wanda L. Waller               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Linda Simmons                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Paul Smith                    |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Alice Muellerweiss            |     |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 informed by his commanding officer
that after 180 days he would be eligible for a discharge upgrade to
honorable.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 25 August 1975.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 8 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 enlisted on 14 January 1974 for a period of 3 years.  He
was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 76Y (armorer/unit supply
specialist).

4.  On 19 December 1974, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for failure to repair.  His punishment consisted of a reduction
to E-1 (suspended), a forfeiture of pay, restriction (suspended), and extra
duty.

5.  On 10 March 1975, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for failure to repair.  His punishment consisted of a reduction
to E-1, a forfeiture of pay, and extra duty.

6.  On 7 August 1975, the applicant was notified of his pending separation
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-37,
under the Expeditious Discharge Program for failure to maintain acceptable
standards for retention.  The unit commander cited that the applicant
demonstrated a total lack of self-discipline and motivation, that he had
been counseled on numerous occasions, and that his duty performance had
been continually substandard.  This letter also stated that, between 10
February 1975 and 23 July 1975, the applicant was counseled on six
occasions for various infractions which included misconduct, job
performance, poor attitude, and appearance.

7.  On 7 August 1975, the applicant acknowledged notification of his
proposed discharge, voluntarily consented to discharge from the Army, and
elected not to make a statement on his behalf.  He also acknowledged that
he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if
issued a general discharge and that he had been provided an opportunity to
consult with counsel.

8.  On 18 August 1975, the separation authority approved the recommendation
for separation and directed that the applicant be furnished a general
discharge.

9.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 25 August 1975 with a
general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
paragraph 5-37, under the Expeditious Discharge Program for failure to
maintain acceptable standards for retention.  He had served 1 year, 7
months, and 12 days of total active service.

10.  There is no evidence in the available records which shows the
applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year
statute of limitations.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  The pertinent
paragraph in chapter
5 provided that members who had completed at least 6 months but less than
36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who
had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards
required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of
motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or
emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential may be
discharged.  It provided for the expeditious elimination of substandard,
nonproductive Soldiers before board or punitive action became necessary.
No member would be discharged under this program unless he/she voluntarily
consented to the proposed discharge.  Issuance of an honorable discharge
certificate was predicated upon proper military behavior and proficient
performance of duty during the member's current enlistment with due
consideration for the member's age, length of service, grade and general
aptitude.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under
honorable conditions of an individual whose military record was not
sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

12.  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.

13.  The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to
automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits
when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted
if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason
for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  A discharge upgrade is not automatic.

2.  The applicant's separation under the Expeditious Discharge Program was
voluntary and the evidence shows he voluntarily consented to the discharge.

3.  The applicant's record of service included adverse counseling
statements and two nonjudicial punishments.  As a result, his record of
service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of
duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is
insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

4.  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.

5.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 25 August 1975; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 24
August 1978.  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

LS______  _PS____  _AM____  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.




                                  ___Linda Simmons______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060003725                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060928                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19750825                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 Paragraph 5-37               |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Expeditious Discharge Program           |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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