RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:    .


      BOARD DATE:        27 February 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060010999


      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. Gerard W. Schwartz            |     |Acting Director      |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Ted S. Kanamine               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Larry C. Bergquist            |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |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 ability to serve was impaired by
his youth and immaturity, mental problems, and family problems.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 13 April 1983.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
18 July 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 that he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 31 August 1981, at the age of 21.  He successfully
completed basic combat training at Fort Dix, New Jersey and advanced
individual training (AIT) at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.  Upon
completion of AIT, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 63H
(Track Vehicle Repairer) and he was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas.

4.  The applicant's Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) shows that
he attained the rank of private first class (PFC) on 1 August 1982, and
that this is the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty.  He
was reduced to private/E-2 (PV2) on 14 February 1983 and to private/E-1
(PV1) on 24 March 1983, for cause.  His record documents no acts of valor,
significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

5.  The applicant's record reveals a disciplinary history that includes his
acceptance of non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article
15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on three separate
occasions.
6.  On 17 August 1982, the applicant accepted NJP for being absent without
leave (AWOL) from 4 through 5 August 1982.  His punishment for this offense
was a reduction to PV1 (Suspended), forfeiture of $100.00, and 14 days of
restriction and extra duty.

7.  On 14 February 1983, the applicant accepted NJP for being AWOL from
7 through 8 February 1983.  His punishment for this offense was a reduction
to PV2, confinement for 7 days, and a forfeiture of $150.00.

8.  On 24 March 1983, the applicant accepted NJP for failing to go to his
appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 13 March 1983.  His
punishment for this offense was a reduction to PV1.

9.  The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) is void of any
documents that indicate the applicant sought help for family problems
through his chain of command, or through other appropriate assistance
agencies while serving on active duty.

10.  On 8 March 1983, the applicant underwent a final medical examination,
which included a mental status evaluation.  The mental status evaluation
indicated the applicant's behavior was normal, he was fully alert and
oriented, his thinking process was clear, and his thought content was
normal.  The examiner indicated there was no mental condition noted.  The
Report of Medical Examination (SF 88) on file shows the applicant was found
normal in the Psychiatric portion of the Clinical Evaluation, and the
applicant was cleared for separation/retention by proper medical authority.


11.  On 24 March 1983, the unit commander notified the applicant of his
intent
to initiate action to effect the applicant's discharge under the provisions
of
chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance.  The
unit commander cited the applicant's inability to adjust to Army life,
which was exhibited by his constant failure to adhere to appropriate rules
and regulations as the basis for taking the action.

12.  On 28 March 1983, 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 not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

13.  On 31 March 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant's
discharge, and directed he receive a GD.  On 13 April 1983, the applicant
was discharged accordingly.  The separation document (DD Form 214) issued
to the applicant upon his separation on 13 April 1983, shows he completed a
total of
1 year, 7 months, and 11 days of creditable active military service and
that he accrued 2 days of time lost due to AWOL.

14.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army
Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within the
ADRB's
15-year statute of limitations.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and
outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory
performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate
a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member
will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further
training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.

16.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his discharge should be upgraded
because his youth and immaturity, mental problems, and family problems
impaired his ability to serve was carefully considered.  However, his
record is void of any documents indicating he was suffering from a
disabling mental condition, or that he was experiencing family problems at
the time of his discharge.

2.  Further, the applicant was almost 22 years old when he entered the
Army, he successfully completed training, and attained the rank of PFC
prior to committing the misconduct that resulted in his discharge, which
are all indicators that he was sufficiently mature to successfully perform
his military duties.

3.  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.  Further, the applicant's
misconduct clearly diminished his
overall record of service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.
Therefore, his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of
undistinguished service and an upgrade of his discharge is not warranted.

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 13 April 1983, the date of his
discharge. Therefore, the time for him to file a request for correction of
any error or injustice expired on 12 April 1986.  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

___TSK  _  __LCB  _  ___LMD_  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.


                                  _____Ted S. Kanamine___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060010999                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/02/27                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1983/04/13                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unsat Perf                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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