RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        1 May 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060016114


      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. Judy L. Blanchard             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Paul M. Smith                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. David K. Haasenritter         |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Edward E. Montgomery          |     |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 discharge be upgraded to an
honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his offenses were not physically
or degrading to anybody except to himself.  He believes that he deserves an
honorable discharge.  He is still awaiting service connected disability
through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in Alabama.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or
injustice, which occurred on 20 September 1991, the date he was discharged
from active duty.  The application submitted in this case is undated;
however, was received on
21 November 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 on
30 November 1990 for a period of 4 years, with 4 months and 3 days of prior
active service.  He completed the required training and was awarded
military occupational specialty (MOS) 88M (Motor Transport Operator).  The
highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was pay grade E-3.

4.  Between May and August 1991, the applicant was counseled on 13
different occasions for missing formation, for failure to repair, for
dishonored checks, and for several occasions of indecent exposure.

5.  On 3 July 1991, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for
four specifications of failing to go at the prescribed time to his
appointed place of duty. His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay
grade E-2, a forfeiture of $224.00 pay per month for 2 months, 14 days
restriction, and 14 days extra duty.
6.  On 6 August 1991, the applicant accepted NJP for being disrespectful to
his superior commissioned officer.  His imposed punishment was a reduction
to pay grade E-1 and 14 days extra duty.

7.  On 7 August 1991, a Report of Medical Examination and a Report of
Mental Status Evaluation found the applicant fit for retention or
separation from service.

8.  On 29 August 1991, the unit commander notified the applicant that he
was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 14, for several occasions of indecent exposure, for
dishonored checks, for receiving two NJP’s for disrespecting a superior
commissioned officer, for missing numerous mandatory formations, and for
his actions which were not conducive with proper military behavior.

9.  On 4 September 1991, the applicant acknowledged that he had been
advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation
action and the rights available to him.  After being advised of the impact
of the discharge action, he waived consideration, personal appearance, and
representation before a board of officers.  The applicant did not submit a
statement in his own behalf.

10.  On the same day, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation
and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions
(UOTHC) discharge.  On 20 September 1991, the applicant was discharged in
pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter14,
for a pattern of misconduct, with an UOTHC discharge.  He had completed a
total of
9 months, and 19 days of creditable active service during this period of
service.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the policy for the separation of
enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes
procedures for separating members because of misconduct.  Specific
categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct,
commission of a serious offense, conviction 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.

12.  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 (emphasis
added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization
would be clearly inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The contentions of the applicant were carefully considered and found to
be without merit in this case.

2.  After carefully evaluating the evidence of record in this case, the
applicant’s discharge processing was conducted in accordance with law and
regulations applicable at the time and that the character of his service is
commensurate with his overall record of military service.  The evidence of
record confirms that all requirements of law and regulation were met and
the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation
process.  Therefore, given the circumstances in this case and his overall
record of service, there is insufficient evidence to support his request.

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 20 September 1991, therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
19 September 1994.  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

___PMS _  ___DKH_  ___EEM_  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.




                                         __Paul M. Smith______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR                                      |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/05/01                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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