RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        1 March 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060011248


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Thomas M. Ray                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. James R. Hastie               |     |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 characterization of service be upgraded
to honorable.

2.  The applicant makes no additional statement.

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 12 January 1987.  The application submitted in this case
is dated      7 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 September 1985.  He
completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded
military occupational specialty 88M (Motor Transport Operator).

4.  From about August 1986 to December 1986, the applicant received at
least 12 counseling statements for infractions such as failure to repair,
writing back checks, failure to shave and personal appearance, being absent
without leave (AWOL), and lying to a noncommissioned officer.

5.  On 13 November 1986, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment
under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being AWOL from on
or about    23 October 1986 to on or about 29 October 1986.

6.  On 24 November 1986, the applicant received a mental status evaluation.
 His evaluation was found to be within normal limits with no apparent
thought disorder noted.  He was cleared for any administrative action
deemed appropriate by his command.

7.  On 24 November 1986, the applicant completed a separation physical
examination and was found qualified for separation.

8.  On 12 December 1986, the applicant’s commander initiated separation
proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for
unsatisfactory performance.  His recommendation cited the applicant’s bad
checks, indebtedness, poor performance, and AWOL.

9.  On 16 December 1986, the applicant acknowledged that he was advised by
consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action.  He
elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He acknowledged that he
understood he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian
life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were to be issued to
him.

10.  In his statement, the applicant stated he believed that with his two
newborn sons it would be in his and his family’s best interest to continue
his career in the Army.  He stated he gave the situation a great deal of
thought, and it was clear that he would not be able to support his family
the way he felt they should be supported [if he were in civilian life].
The Army taught him responsibility, and he would have liked a chance to
prove himself worthy of the Army and his two sons.

11.  On 16 December 1986, the applicant’s commander formally recommended
his separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13.

12.  The appropriate authority waived the rehabilitative requirement,
approved the recommendation, directed that the applicant be given a general
under honorable conditions characterization of service, and directed he be
released from active duty and placed in the Individual Ready Reserve.

13.  On 12 January 1987, the applicant was released from active duty, in
pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13,
for Unsatisfactory Performance, with a characterization of service of
general under honorable conditions, and transferred to the U. S. Army
Reserve.  He had completed 1 year, 4 months, and 2 days of creditable
active service.  His DD Form 214 does not list any lost time.

14.  On 14 September 1993, the applicant was discharged from the U. S. Army
Reserve with an honorable characterization of service.

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, or is
otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly
inappropriate.

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.  He was separated for
unsatisfactory performance. These acts which led to his separation included
numerous instances of failure to repair, one period of AWOL, writing bad
checks, and lying to a noncommissioned officer.

2.  Although it appears the applicant might have served honorably in the U.
S. Army Reserve subsequent to his separation of 12 January 1987, the
quality of his service leading up to his separation of 12 January 1987 did
not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for
Army personnel.

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 12 January 1987; therefore, the time
for   the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on   11 January 1990.  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

__tmr___  __jcr___  __jrh___  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.




                                  __Thomas M. Ray_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060011248                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070301                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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