RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        27 March 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060013088


      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, he thinks his discharge should be
upgraded now because he has grown up.  He has learned his lesson, and he is
not making those mistakes he made when he was younger anymore.  He states
that he is working and going to church now and he has turned his life
around.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement and his separation
document (DD Form 214) in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 8 April 1987, the date of his discharge.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 7 September 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 he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 1 August 1985.  He was trained in, awarded, and
served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11C (Infantry Indirect Fire
Crewman), and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was
private/E-2 (PV2).

4.  The applicant's record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  His record shows
that during his active duty tenure, he earned the Army Service Ribbon.  His
disciplinary history 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.

5.  On 28 April 1986, the applicant accepted NJP for being disrespectful in
language toward a noncommissioned officer (NCO) in the execution of his
office. His punishment for this offense was a reduction to private/E-1
(PV1), forfeiture of $100.00, and 14 days of extra duty.

6.  On 24 July 1986, the applicant accepted NJP for disobeying a lawful
order.  His punishment was 9 days of extra duty.

7.  On 26 January 1987, the applicant accepted NJP for wrongfully using
marijuana.  His punishment for this offense was a reduction to PV1,
forfeiture of $150.00, and 30 days of extra duty.

8.  The applicant's record also shows he was formally counseled, on a
myriad of conduct and duty performance infractions, by members of his chain
of command on 15 separate occasions between February 1986 and January 1987.


9.  On 13 February 1987, the unit commander notified the applicant that he
was initiating separation action against him under the provisions of
chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, based on his receiving a field grade
Article 15 for a positive urinalysis.

10.  On 19 February 1987, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and
was advised of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him for
misconduct and its effects, and of the rights available to him.

11.  On 27 March 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant's
separation under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for
misconduct, and directed he receive a GD.  On 8 April 1987, the applicant
was discharged accordingly.

12.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant upon his discharge confirms he
held the rank of PV1 at the time, and that he completed a total of 1 year,
8 months, and 8 days of active military service.

13.  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.

14.  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.  A discharge under other than
honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate for members
separated under these provisions of the regulation.  The separation
authority may authorize a GD or HD if warranted based on the members
overall record of service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that he has grown up and no longer makes the
mistakes he made when he was young, and as a result his discharge should be
upgraded was carefully considered.  However, although his post-service
conduct is noteworthy, this factor alone is 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.  Further,
the applicant's misconduct diminished the overall quality of his service
below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  Therefore, there is an
insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief.

3.  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.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 8 April 1987, the date of his
discharge.  Therefore, the time for him to file a request for correction of
any error or injustice expired on 7 April 1990.  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                 |AR20060013088                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/03/27                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1987/04/08                              |
|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]