RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            26 September 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20060003730


      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:

|     |Ms. Maria Troup                   |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Chester Damian                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Edward Montgomery             |     |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 asks for forgiveness and desires to once
again serve his country.  He further states that he is more mature and
wiser and wishes to make a difference for himself, his country, the Army
and his Commander in Chief.  He continues by stating that his squad leader
was prejudiced against him and did not give him a fair chance to redeem
himself.  He also states that he was once a good Soldier and he now desires
to rejoin the Army and serve his country with honor, maturity and
sincerity.

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 17 August 1990.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 6 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 24 December 1967 and enlisted in the United
States Army Reserve (USAR) under the delayed entry program (DEP) on
10 August 1988.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 October 1988 for a
period of 3 years, training as an infantryman and for assignment to the
10th Mountain Division.  He completed his one-station unit training (OSUT)
at Fort Benning, Georgia and was transferred to Fort Drum, New York on 27
January 1989.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-2 on 1 March 1989 and
to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 September 1989.

4.  Although the specifics are not present in the available records,
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant by his
company commander on 21 November 1989 for larceny.  His punishment
consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, a forfeiture of pay,
extra duty and restriction.

5.  NJP was again imposed against the applicant on 5 December 1989 and he
was reduced to the pay grade of E-1.

6.  On 7 December 1989, the applicant’s commander initiated a
recommendation to bar the applicant from reenlistment.  He cited the
applicant’s disciplinary record, two incidents of writing bad checks, his
failure to respond to repeated counseling sessions, his requirement for
constant supervision and his lack of ability to accept and handle
responsibility as the basis for his recommendation.  The applicant elected
not to submit a statement in his own behalf and the battalion commander
approved the bar to reenlistment on 8 December 1989.

7.  A review of his records shows that from July 1989 to November 1990, the
applicant was counseled on at least 30 different occasions regarding
writing bad checks, failure to pay his bills, failure to return signed-out
books, failure to provide his wife sufficient funds/support, lack of self-
discipline, actions unbecoming a Soldier, failure to follow instructions,
room in disarray, needing a haircut, lying to a noncommissioned officer
(NCO), disobeying an NCO, failure to follow instructions, lack of
motivation and self-discipline, poor military appearance, falsifying a sick
slip, displaying immature behavior, sleeping on duty, failure to be at his
appointed place of duty, missing guard mount, and repeated substandard
performance of duty.  His records also indicate that on two previous
occasions, he was notified that separation proceedings were being initiated
to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-
200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  In each of those
instances he requested and received the opportunity to overcome his
shortcomings and proceedings were stopped.

8.  However, on 30 July 1990, the commander initiated a third
recommendation to discharge the applicant from the service under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory
performance.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s
disciplinary record, demonstrated unsatisfactory performance, his failure
to respond to repeated counseling sessions and rehabilitation attempts by
the chain of command, his lack of interest in becoming a productive Soldier
or improving himself, and his lack of potential for further military
service.

9.  The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and was found to be
mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to
the right.


10.  The applicant acknowledged his rights and elected to waive all of his
rights, to include consultation with counsel.  He also declined the
opportunity to submit a statement in his own behalf.

11.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed
that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

12.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions
on 17 August 1990, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter
13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He had served 1 year, 10 months and 7
days of total active service.

13.  There is no indication 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-year statute of limitations.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, in effect at the time,
established policy and provided guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel
for unsatisfactory performance and who were unsuitable for further military
service.  An individual could be separated for unsatisfactory performance
if it was determined that the member will not develop sufficiently to
participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory
soldier.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally
considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, was administratively correct and in
conformance with applicable regulations with no indication of any
violations of the applicant’s rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore
were appropriate under the circumstances.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However,
they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to his
misconduct and his otherwise undistinguished record of service during such
a short period of time.  His service simply does not rise to the level of a
fully honorable discharge.



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 17 August 1990; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
16 August 1993.  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

___MT __  ___CD __  ___EM  _  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.




                                  ______ Maria Troup______
                                            CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060003730                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060926                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(GD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1990/08/17                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200/ch13 . . . . .                |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unsat perf                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES                  |572/a49.00                              |
|1.144.4900              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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