RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        1 March 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060011388


      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. 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, in effect, that his under other than honorable
conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general, under honorable
conditions discharge (GD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he should have been discharged on the
grounds of mental depression because he was a known homosexual.

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 3 October 1985, the date of his discharge from the United
States Army Reserve (USAR).  The application submitted in this case is
dated 24 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 on 18 June 1979, the applicant
enlisted in the ARNG for six years.

4.  On 16 July 1979, the applicant entered active duty to complete his
initial active duty for training (IADT).

5.  On 21 January 1980, the applicant successfully completed IADT and was
awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 76W (Petroleum Supply
Specialist) and was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) and
returned to his ARNG unit.

6.  The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) does not
contain a complete separation packet containing the specific facts and
circumstances surrounding the applicant's separation processing.  It does
contain an 18 August 1981 letter to the applicant from the Office of the
Adjutant General, State of New Jersey, that notified him that action had
been initiated to separate him from the ARNG of the State of New Jersey for
misconduct (Unsatisfactory Participation), and that his service could be
characterized as UOTHC.

7.  The applicant's MPRJ also contains a separation document (NGB Form 22)
that confirms the applicant was discharged from the New Jersey ARNG on
26 October 1981, and that his service was characterized as UOTHC.  The NGB
Form 22 shows he held the rank of private/E-2 and that he had completed 2
years, 4 months, and 9 days of military service.  It also shows that he was
transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement), St. Louis, Missouri.


8.  USAR Personnel Center (ARPERCEN), St, Louis, Orders Number D-10-909927,
dated 3 October 1985, directed the applicant's UOTHC discharge from the
USAR, in the rank of private/E-1 (PV1), effective 3 October 1985,

9.  The applicant's record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  It also contains
no medical treatment records indicating the applicant was suffering from a
disabling physical or mental condition at the time of his discharge.

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

11.  Army Regulation 135-178 (Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets
policies, standards, and procedures for the orderly administrative
separation of ARNG and USAR enlisted Soldiers.  Chapter 13 provides for the
separation of Soldiers for unsatisfactory participation when it is
determined the Soldier is an unsatisfactory participant.  Characterization
of service normally will be UOTHC; however, the commander may authorize a
GD if it is warranted based on the member's overall record of service.

12.  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 contention that his UOTHC discharge should be upgraded
to a GD on the grounds of mental depression was carefully considered.
However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  Although the evidence of record does not contain a complete separation
packet containing all the facts and circumstances surrounding the
applicant's discharge processing, it does contain a letter from the Office
of the Adjutant General, State of New Jersey, that notified the applicant
that action had been initiated to separate him from the ARNG of the State
of New Jersey for misconduct (Unsatisfactory Participation), and that his
service could be characterized as UOTHC.

3.  The applicant's record also contains an NGB Form 22 and USAR separation
orders confirming his discharge from the ARNG and from the USAR,
respectively.  Absent evidence to the contrary, it is concluded that his
separation processing for unsatisfactory participation was accomplished in
accordance with the applicable regulations.  All requirements of law and
regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the
separation process.

4.  Further, an UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate for
members separated by reason of unsatisfactory participation.  The
applicant's record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or
service warranting special recognition.  It is also void of any indication
that he suffered from a disabling physical or mental condition that would
have impaired his ability to serve at the time.  His record did not support
award of a GD at the time of his discharge and it does not support it now.
Therefore, it would not be appropriate to grant the requested relief.

5.  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.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 3 October 1985, the date of his
discharge from the USAR.  Therefore, the time for him to file a request for
correction of any error or injustice expired on 2 October 1988.  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

___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                 |AR20060011388                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/03/01                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1985/10/03                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 135-178                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unsat Part                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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