RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  3 May 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060015065 


	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

Ms. Joyce A. Wright

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Richard T. Dunbar

Chairperson

Mr. Michael J. Flynn

Member

Ms. Rose M. Lys

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 discharge, under honorable conditions, be upgraded to an honorable discharge in order to enable him to find a job being a policeman.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he believes his discharge was a little unjust because he was too young for the military at that time.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which occurred on 23 July 1986, the date of his discharge.  The application submitted in this case is dated 25 October 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 on 7 February 1985, at the age of 21 years, 5 months, and 8 days.  His date of birth is 30 August 1963.  The applicant successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.  On completion of his OSUT (one station unit training), he was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS), 76Y, Unit Supply Specialist.

4.  All the documents containing the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge are not present in the available records.  However, the applicant's records contain a copy his DD Form 214 which shows that on 23 July 1986, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He was furnished a general discharge, under honorable conditions, in the pay grade of E-1.  He had a total of 1 year, 5 months, and 17 days of creditable service.

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

6.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharges of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of this regulation, in effect at the time, provided for the separation of Soldiers due to their unsatisfactory performance when in the commander's judgment the individual would not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention would have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member would be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation would continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, was unlikely.  Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation would be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

7.  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. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  All the facts and circumstances pertaining to his discharge are unavailable for review.

3.  The Board noted that the applicant’s record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 which was authenticated by the applicant.  This document identifies the reason for the applicant's discharge and the characterization of his service and the Board presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.


4.  The applicant's desire to have his general discharge, under honorable conditions, upgraded to honorable in order to enable him to find a job being a policeman is acknowledged; however, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of enabling an applicant to obtain better employment opportunities.

5.  The applicant believed that his discharge was a little unjust because he was too young for the military at that time. The applicant was 21 years, 5 months, and 8 days of age at the time of his enlistment.  There is no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same or of a younger age who served successfully and completed their term of service.

6.  There is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided none, to show that he applied for an upgrade of his discharge to the ADRB within its 15-year statute of limitations.

7.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show, to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

8.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 23 July 1986; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 22 July 1989.  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

___MJF _  __RML __  _RTD___  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.




____Richard T. Dunbar________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060015065
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20070503
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
GD
DATE OF DISCHARGE
19860723
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200, CHAP 13
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
144
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.