RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        27 September 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070006780


      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.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Judy L. Blanchard             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Chester A. Damian             |     |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 general, under honorable
conditions discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he wants his discharge upgraded
because he discovered that he is not eligible for the Illinois Veteran
Grant Program (IVG) because of the type of discharge he received.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of the IVG Program Notice of
Ineligibility in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an
applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations
if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided
in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a
substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is
granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the
applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are
insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant’s record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army on
1 December 1970, for a period of 2 years.  He completed the required
training and was awarded Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 76A (Supply
Clerk).  The highest grade he attained was private/pay grade E-2.

3.  On 8 March 1971, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
for leaving his appointed place of duty without authority.  His imposed
punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1 (suspended for 60 days), a
forfeiture of $34.00 pay, 14 days restriction, and 14 days extra duty.

4.  On 11 March 1971, the applicant accepted NJP for leaving his appointed
place of duty without authority.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to
pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of $31.00 pay, 14 days restriction, and 14 days
extra duty.

5.  On 26 August 1971, the applicant accepted NJP for failing to go at the
prescribed time to his appointed place of duty.  His imposed punishment was
a forfeiture of $10.00 pay.

6.  On 13 September 1971, the applicant accepted NJP for being absent
without leave from 8 to 9 September 1971.  His imposed punishment was a
forfeiture of $30.00 pay.

7.  On 26 September 1971, the applicant was evaluated by a psychiatrist.
The applicant was found mentally responsible, able to distinguish right
from wrong and to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to
understand and participate in board proceedings.

8.  On the same day, a medical evaluation found the applicant physically
fit for retention or separation.

9.  On 29 October 1971, the applicant was advised by the unit commander
that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-212, by reason of unfitness.  The applicant consulted with
legal counsel and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated
separation, its effects and the rights available to him, he waived his
right to consideration of his case by a board of officers, personal
appearance before a board of officers, and his right to counsel.  The
applicant did not submit a statement in his behalf.

10.  On 18 February 1972, the separation authority directed the applicant’s
separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness
and that he receive a discharge under honorable conditions.  On 1 March
1972, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 (Armed
Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) issued to him
at the time, confirms the applicant completed a total of 1 year, 3 months,
and 1 day of creditable active military service.

11.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority, established the policy, and prescribed the procedures for
separating members for unfitness.  An undesirable discharge was normally
considered appropriate for members separating under these provisions;
however, he received a discharge under honorable conditions.

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.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general
discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When
authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory
but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A
characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the
reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such
characterization.

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

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that he needs his discharge upgraded to meet
the eligibility criteria for the IGV Program was carefully considered.
However, this was not found to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant the
requested relief.

2.  The evidence of record confirms his unit commander notified the
applicant of the contemplated separation action and that he consulted with
legal counsel.  It further shows that after being advised of the basis for
the contemplated separation action and its possible effects, he voluntarily
elected to waive his right to have his case considered by a board of
officers and he elected not to submit a rebuttal statement in his own
behalf.

3.  After carefully evaluating the evidence of record in this case, it is
determined that 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 the applicant’s
rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.

4.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, it is concluded that all requirements
of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully
protected throughout the separation process.



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

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___RTD__  ___CAD_  ___EEM_  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.




                                  ____Richard T. Dunbar_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR                                      |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/09/27                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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