RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        24 May 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060016903


      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. Deyon D. Battle               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Jeffrey Redmann               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald Weaver                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. David Tucker                  |     |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 an upgrade of his general discharge to an
honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that when he was in the Army, he was not the same
person that he is today.  He states that he is not a bad person and that he
is only a person that made bad decisions.  He states that although it is
his opinion that the circumstances which led to his discharge were a bit
harsh, he has come to terms with and accepts of the possibility that there
may have been things he could have done differently.  He states that he
could say that the reason behind it all was because within a matter of 3
months, he graduated from high school, got married and enlisted in the
Army.  He states that he could say that his young age and subsequent lack
of maturity rendered him unable to handle the everyday stress of married
life; and that although difficulties may have existed, he is now and always
has been a man who values family.  He states that when given the ultimatum
of divorcing his wife or being discharged from the Army, he chose to be
discharged.  He states that his dedication and commitment to serve were
validated by the fact that within 3 months of his enlistment, he received
two promotions.

3.  The applicant goes on to state that it was his hope to pursue a career
in law enforcement, a dream of which he is quite passionate yet thus far
unable to grasp because of the dark shadows of his past.  He states that if
he could cite one reason that his request for a discharge upgrade should be
granted it would be to remove the hindrances that cause him to be passed up
for positions for which he is qualified; hindrances that create road blocks
to future employment opportunities; and hindrances that disable him from
being a more productive provider for his family.  He states that his future
is resting on this Board's decision which, if favorable, will change his
life in more ways than one.  He concludes by stating that he believes
everyone deserves a second chance and a second chance is all that he is
requesting.

4.  The applicant provides in support of his application, a copy of his
Certificate of Live Birth and a statement from the Social Security
Administration verifying his Social Security Number.






CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 12 October 1990.  The application submitted in this case
is dated 12 April 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.  On 30 August 1988, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army, for 4
years, in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his training as
a quartermaster and chemical equipment repairer.

4.  Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 6
April 1989, for being absent from his place of duty.  His sentenced
consisted of 14 days of extra duty.

5.  On 25 August 1989, NJP was imposed against the applicant for missing
morning physical training formation.  His sentence consisted of 14 days of
extra duty.

6.  The available records indicate that the applicant was counseled
numerous times between 25 August 1989 and 30 August 1990 for missing
formation and for being absent from his appointed place of duty.  He was
repeatedly informed that his poor attitude and repetitive acts of
indiscipline would not be tolerated.  He was continuously informed that his
actions could result in disciplinary action being taken against him.

7.  On 7 August 1990, the applicant's commanding officer was notified by
the Family Advocacy Case Management Team that the case of suspected child
abuse/neglect against the applicant had been reviewed and was determined to
be substantiated.  His commanding officer was told that, in accordance with
Army Regulation 608-18 a Child/Spouse Abuse Incident Report (DD Form 2486)
would be forwarded to the United States Army Central Registry, Fort Sam
Houston, Texas.

8.  On 25 August 1990, the applicant's neighbors, within the area that he
resides, took up a petition to have his wife removed from housing for
pulling a knife on someone on two separate occasions; and for using abusive
and vulgar language around the children.

9.  On 30 August 1990, the applicant was counseled for failure to keep an
appointment with military police investigators.

10.  On 10 September 1990, the applicant was counseled for missing
formation and during this counseling session, he was told that it was very
annoying for his platoon to continually put up with his lack of soldierly
concern; that his actions were repetitious and could not be tolerated any
longer; and that his inability to follow simple rules and standards set
forth by his chain of command was unjustifiable.  He was directed to move
into the barracks effective immediately.

11.  A memorandum for personnel record that was completed by the
applicant's commanding officer on 10 September 1990 indicates that he was
counseled for poor duty performance and personal problems that resulted in
reported abuse cases; and that he was given a 30-day notice in which he
would be evaluated for any reoccurring incidents or problems.  The
applicant's spouse was present during the counseling and they both were
informed that a possible administrative discharge under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, could be initiated against the
applicant if his performance did not improve or if any further incidents
were reported against him.  The applicant's wife was encouraged to support
him and she was told that his future with the military was also dependent
upon her cooperation.  In the memorandum, the applicant's commanding
officer indicated that over the past year, he had been charged in two
spouse abuse and two child abuse cases.   His commanding officer stated
that he (the applicant) had been late and absent from work numerous times;
that his chain of command had dedicated many hours of service and
counseling in attempts to assist him and his family with their problems and
needs; and that a number of attempts had been made to get him and his wife
marriage and financial counseling.  The commanding officer stated that both
the applicant and his wife had been non-respondent and unappreciative to
the support; and that both had shown a lack of commitment or concern in
overcoming their problems.  He stated that the neither of the two had a
drivers license therefore transportation issues presented a major concern;
that neither had made any attempts to get a drivers license; and that they
both heavily depended upon other people to assist them in their needs.  The
commanding officer stated that the applicant's spouse had displayed a
belligerent



attitude toward his chain of command and that on one occasion she
threatened a non-commissioned officer with a butcher knife.  The commanding
officer concluded the memorandum by stating that both the applicant and his
spouse were instructed to get financial and marriage counseling.

12.  On 1 October 1990, the applicant was notified that he was being
recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  The commander cited numerous
disruptions with the unit and numerous counseling statement which attests
to his unsuitability of service as the basis for his recommendation.  The
applicant acknowledged receipt of the recommendation for discharge and
after consulting with counsel, opted to submit a request for retention in
the Army.

13.  In his request for retention, the applicant spoke of the specific
problems that he was having with his spouse and he stated that he believed
he could get his life in order and be the soldier that he desired to be if
he were given another chance.

14.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on
3 October 1990 and he directed the issuance of a general discharge.
Accordingly, on 12 October 1990, the applicant was discharged under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, due to unsatisfactory
performance.  He had completed 2 years, 1 month and 13 days of total active
service and he was furnished a general discharge.

15.  A review of the available records fail to show that the applicant ever
applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge
within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and
outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory
performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate
a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member
will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further
training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were
appropriate considering the available facts of the case.

3.  The contentions made by the applicant in this case have been noted.
However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The
available records show that he was counseled numerous times as a result of
his unsatisfactory performance and conduct, which he failed to improve.
Considering his numerous acts of indiscipline, it does not appear that the
general discharge that he received was too harsh as his character of
service was not totally honorable.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show 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.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 12 October 1990; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 11 October 1993.  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

__RW ___  __JR ___  __DT ___  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.




                                  ____Jeffrey Redmann_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060016903                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070524                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19901012                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |CHAPTER 13/UNSAT PERFORMANCE            |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  572  |144.4900/UNSAT PERFORMANCE              |
|2.  713                 |144.7110/ABSENT FROM PLACE OF DUTY      |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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