RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        27 March 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060012814


      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. Kenneth L. Wright             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Chester A. Damian             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Ernestine R. Fields           |     |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, that at the time he was serving,
alcohol was a major part of his life; however, he took his last drink on 25
January 1988.  He also states at the time, his wife was causing major
problems and leaving the Army was the only way to fix those problems.  He
states he is still sober today, 18 years later.

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 18 October 1988, the date of his discharge.  The
application submitted in this case is dated 30 August 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 25 February 1986.  He was trained in, awarded, and
served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 52D (Power Generation
Equipment Repairer), and the highest rank he attained while serving on
active duty was specialist four (SP4).

4.  The applicant's Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) shows he
earned the Army Service Ribbon, Parachutist Badge, Expert Marksmanship
Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar, and Marksman Marksmanship
Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar during his active duty tenure.  His
record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service
warranting special recognition.

5.  The applicant's disciplinary record includes his arrest for driving
while intoxicated (DWI) by civilian police on 24 January 1988, and his
conviction of this offense in civil court on 16 February 1988, which
resulted in the revocation of his license.

6.  On 7 May 1988, the applicant was detained by Military Police for
driving with a cancelled, suspended, or revoked license.  After being
processed, the applicant was released to his unit.

7.  On 20 July 1988, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under
the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
on 20 July 1988, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the
prescribed time.  His punishment for this offense was a reduction to
private first class (PFC) and forfeiture of $192.00, both of which were
suspended, and 14 days of extra duty.

8.  In August 1988, the suspension of the reduction to PFC and forfeiture
of $192.00 imposed by the Article 15 of 20 July 1988 was vacated, and the
unexecuted portion of the punishment was ordered duly executed.  The
vacation of the suspension was based on the applicant's failure to report
to duty on
4 August 1988.

9.  On 6 October 1988, the unit commander notified the applicant that
separation action was being initiated on him under the provisions of
chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct.

10.  On 11 October 1988, 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 waived his right to have his case considered by personal
appearance before an administrative separation board.

11.  On 11 October 1988, the separation authority approved the applicant's
discharge and directed he receive a GD.  On 18 October 1988, the applicant
was discharged accordingly.  The separation document (DD Form 214) he was
issued at the time shows he completed a total of 2 years, 7 months, and 22
days of active military service, and that he held the rank of PFC on the
date of his separation.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and
prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific
categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct,
commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities,
desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a
member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is
impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  An under other than honorable
conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate for members
separated under these provisions; however, the separation may direct a GD
or HD if warranted by the member's overall record of service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions that his discharge should be upgraded
because although it was a problem at the time, he no longer has an alcohol
problem, and because at the time of his discharge he was under extreme
stress due to martial problems were carefully considered.  However, these
factors are not sufficiently mitigating to support granting the requested
relief.

2.  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 the rights of the
applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  Although it is noteworthy that the applicant no longer consumes
alcohol, it is also clear his misconduct diminished the quality of his
service below that warranting a fully honorable discharge.  Further, his
record of service was not sufficiently meritorious to support an HD at the
time of his discharge or to support an upgrade now.  As a result, there is
an insufficient evidentiary basis to support an upgrade of his discharge at
this time.

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 18 October 1988, the date of his
discharge. Therefore, the time for his to file a request for correction of
any error or injustice expired on 17 October 1991.  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

__KLW __  __CAD__  __EJF  __  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.




                                  _____Kenneth L. Wright____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060012814                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/03/27                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1988/10/18                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 C14                          |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Misconduct                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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