RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        17 May 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060015665


      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. Eric N. Andersen              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Antonio Uribe                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Rodney E. Barber              |     |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 (GD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he entered active duty in 1981 and
received a GD in 1982.

3.  The applicant provides 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 27 July 1982, the date of his separation.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 24 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 that he served in the United States Army
Reserve (USAR) from 29 August through 3 November 1980, and that he served
on active duty completing his initial active duty for training (IADT) from
4 November 1980 through 20 March 1981.  Upon completion of his IADT, he was
awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 71N (Traffic Management
Coordinator).

4.  On 22 July 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army and entered
active duty in the rank of private/E-2 (PV2), and was assigned to Fort
Lewis, Washington, where he performed duties in MOS 71N as a documents
clerk.

5.  The applicant's Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) shows he
was promoted to private first class (PFC) on 16 December 1981, and that
this is the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty.  It also
shows that during his active duty tenure, he earned the Army Service Ribbon
and Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.

6.  The applicant's record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  It does reveal a
disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of non-judicial
punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ) on two separate occasions.

7.  On 8 February 1982, for disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment for
this offense was a reduction to PV2, forfeiture of $100.00 (suspended), and
14 days of extra duty and restriction.  On 5 March 1982, the suspended
portion of this punishment was vacated and ordered executed for cause.

8.  On 5 March 1982, the applicant accepted NJP for wrongfully possessing
marijuana.  His punishment for this offense was a reduction to private/E-1
(PV1) and forfeiture of $100.00, which were suspended and 14 days of extra
duty.

9.  The applicant's record also shows that between 27 January and 27 April
1982, he was formally counseled by members of his chain of command for poor
duty performance, bad attitude, failure to repair and failure to follow
instructions.

10.  On 13 July 1982, his unit commander notified the applicant of his
intent to initiate action to separate him under the provisions of the
Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP), and that he was recommending the
applicant receive a GD.  The unit commander cited the applicant’s lack of
motivation and self-discipline, poor attitude, and lack of promotion
potential as the reasons for taking the action.

11.  On 16 July 1982, the applicant acknowledged the notification in
writing.  He further acknowledged that he understood that if he received a
GD, he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life,
and he acknowledged that he had been afforded the opportunity to consult
with legal counsel.

12.  On 21 July 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
separation under the provisions of the EDP, and directed the applicant
receive a GD.  On 27 July 1982, the applicant was separated accordingly.
The separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued shows he was separated
under the provisions of paragraph 5-31 (EDP), Army Regulation 635-200,
after completing 1 year and 6 days of his enlistment and a total of 1 year,
4 months, and 23 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 5, paragraph 5-31, then in
effect, provided the policy and outlined the procedures for separating
individuals under the EDP.  The EDP provided for the separation of Soldiers
who demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards
required of enlisted personnel.  An HD or GD could be issued under this
program.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his GD should be upgraded to an HD was
carefully considered.  However, the evidence of record confirms the
applicant's separation processing under the provisions of the EDP was
accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All
requirements of law and regulation met, and his rights were fully protected
throughout the separation process.

2.  The applicant's record reveals an extensive disciplinary history that
clearly diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully
honorable discharge.  Therefore, absent any evidence of error or injustice,
there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support an upgrade of his
discharge at this late date.

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 27 July 1982, the date of his
separation.  Therefore, the time for him to file a request for correction
of any error or injustice expired on 26 July 1985.  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

__ENA __  __AU ___  __REB __  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.




                                  _____Eric N. Andersen ____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060015665                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/05/17                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1982/07/27                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |EDP                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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