RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            21 SEPTEMBER 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20060004027


      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. Deyon D. Battle               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William Crain                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jeffrey Redmann               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. David Tucker                  |     |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 under other than honorable conditions
discharge be upgraded to an honorable or a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states that even though he is separated from the
military, he has been working for the military and around the military as
well.  He states that he still believes and supports the military code of
conduct and all of the great things that the military stands for.  He
states that he had achieved great things in his life; however, in order to
achieve a higher status in his life he is his asking that his discharge be
upgraded to honorable or general.

3.  The applicant provides in support a letter from the University of Texas
at El Paso, dated 3 November 2005, recommending that he be allowed to
enlist in the Reserves; and a copy of what appears to be his resume.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 31 August 1988.  The application submitted in this case
is dated 7 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.  On 16 October 1987, he enlisted in the United States Army Reserve under
the Delayed Entry Program, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for 8 years, in the
pay grade of E-2.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 November 1987.  He
successfully completed his training as a cannon crewmember.  Upon
completion of his training, he was transferred to Germany.

4.  Non-judicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on
20 November 1987, for impersonating a noncommissioned officer (NCO) of the
Army by representing himself to be a sergeant in the charge of quarters of


Casual Detachment and asserting the authority of an NCO by giving orders to
a private.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay in amount of
$172.00,
14 days of restriction, and 14 days of extra duty.

5.  On 23 May 1988, NJP was imposed against the applicant for breaking
restriction.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-
1; a forfeiture of pay in the amount of $175.00, 14 days of restriction,
and 14 days of extra duty.

6.  The available records also indicate that NJP was imposed against him
for being drunk and disorderly.  However, the record is void of the date
and type of punishment that was imposed.

7.  On 23 June 1988, the applicant was counseled for not having his room
ready for inspection.  During the counseling session, the applicant was
informed that even though he had already been recommended for separation,
his attitude was more negative than even before, and that his behavior
would not be tolerated.

8.  On 12 August 1988, charges were preferred against the applicant for
being disrespectful in language to his superior NCO; for being
disrespectful in language to his superior commissioned officer; for failure
to obey a lawful order given by an NCO; being disrespectful in language
toward a sergeant; being disrespectful in language to a staff sergeant; for
willfully destroying a window in the battery billets by throwing a
television set through said window; for willfully damaging by striking with
his hand, a light fixture in the battery billets; for assaulting a private
by striking him with a dangerous weapon (swing blade); and being drunk and
disorderly which conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed
forces.

9.  On 14 August 1988, after consulting with counsel, the applicant
submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulations
635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-
martial.  Along with his request for discharge, he submitted a statement in
his own behalf.  In the statement, he indicated that he joined the Army
because he wanted to serve his country, and because it was the best way to
help his family.  He stated that he was raised by his mother in a family of
six, and that he never knew his father.  He stated that aside from all of
the other problems, the family did not have very much money, and one of his
older brothers was severely mentally handicapped.  He stated that it was
really hard for him to be in Europe hearing about his family's problems and
not being able to catch a flight home.  He stated that he really

hoped that things would work out for him in the military, and that he was
not sure whey things did not work out.  He stated that he was opposed to
the chapter 5 paperwork that was initially started on him, and that it was
only after the paperwork was taking so long that he began to get into
trouble.  The applicant concluded his statement by requesting that he be
separated from the military with a general discharge so that he could try
to get a decent job.

10.  The request for discharge was approved by the appropriate authority on
25 August 1988.  Accordingly, on 31 August 1988, the applicant was
discharged under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of
trial by court-martial.  He had completed only 9 months and 26 days of net
active service.

11.  A review of the available records fail 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.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides,
in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses
for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may
submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial
by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges
have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.
Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under
other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, 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.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general
discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When
authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory
but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A
characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the
reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such
characterization.

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

3.  The applicant's contentions have been noted.  However, they are not
sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.  The evidence of
record shows the applicant had NJP imposed against him at least twice; he
had been
counseled on at least one occasion; and he had court-martial charges
pending against him as result of his acts of indiscipline.  Considering the
nature of his offenses, it does not appear that the type of discharge that
he received was too harsh.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show 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.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 31 August 1988; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 30 August 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

___WC__  ___JR___  ___DT_____  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.




                                  _____  William Crain_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060004027                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060921                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19880831                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |CH 10/ FOR THE GOOD OF THE SERVICE      |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES         1.  689  |144.7000/FOR THE GOOD OF THE SERVICE    |
|2.  716                 |144.7300/ASSAULT                        |
|3.  718                 |144.7500/DISOBEYING A LAWFUL ORDER      |
|4.  725                 |144.7600/DISRESPECT                     |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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