RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        11 December 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070010290


      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             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Sherry J. Stone               |     |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 (HD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he had only one incident during
his two years of service that resulted in his acceptance of non-judicial
punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ). He states this Article 15 was the result of his
being 15 minutes late for work.  He states that his separation came at a
time of Army reduction and was proposed by his commander as being mutually
beneficial.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentary evidence 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 for 3
years and entered active duty on 19 January 1970.  He was trained in and
awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 26T (Television Repairer),
and specialist four (SP4) is the highest rank he attained while serving on
active duty.

3.  The applicant's record shows the during his active duty tenure, he
earned the National Defense Service Medal.  His record documents no acts of
valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.


4.  The applicant's disciplinary history includes his acceptance of NJP on
6 October 1971, for failure to repair.  His punishment for this offense was
a reduction to private first class (PFC).

5.  On 4 November 1971, the applicant's security clearance was revoked
under the provisions of Paragraph 3-1d, Army Regulation 604-5, based on
derogatory information that did not warrant an unfavorable personnel
action.

6.  The applicant's record also shows that he was formally counseled by
members of his chain of command on 12 separate occasions between 21 May
1971 and 10 January 1972, for a myriad of performance and conduct problems.

7.  On 17 January 1972, his unit commander notified the applicant of the
intent to process the applicant for separation under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-212, by reason of unsuitability based on the applicant's
apathetic attitude toward military service.

8.  On 17 January 1972, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the
separation notification and confirmed that he had been advised of the basis
for his contemplated separation by counsel.  He also confirmed that he was
waiving his right to consideration of his case by and personal appearance
before a board of officers, and he elected not to submit a statement in his
own behalf.

9.  On 17 January 1972, the unit commander submitted the separation action
on the applicant citing the suspension of the applicant's security
clearance and the applicant's developing trend of misconduct in the form of
failure to repair and failure to maintain a proper appearance.  The unit
commander further indicated that all efforts in the past had been directed
at rehabilitation of the applicant in view of his previous performance and
high aptitude scores; however, all rehabilitative efforts proved to be
futile.

10.  On 18 January 1971, the separation authority approved the applicant's
separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of
unsuitability and directed the applicant receive a GD.  On 18 January 1972,
the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The separation document (DD Form
214) issued to the applicant shows he completed a total of 2 years of
active military service and held the rank of PFC on the date of his
discharge.

11.  There is no indication that the applicant petitioned the Army
Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year
statute of limitations.

12.  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 unsuitability (apathy, defective attitude and
inability to expend effort constructively).  Members separating under this
provision of the regulation could receive either and HD or GD.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that only one incident of misconduct
unjustly led to his separation processing was carefully considered.
However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  The applicant was fully advised of the basis for the contemplated
separation action, its effects and of the rights available to him, and he
voluntarily waived his right to consideration of his case by a board of
officers.  His discharge was processed in accordance with the applicable
regulation.  All requirements of law and regulation were met, and his
rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant had a significant
history of minor performance and conduct-related disciplinary infractions,
as evidenced by his extensive counseling record and the NJP action he
accepted, which clearly diminished the overall quality of his service below
that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  It is also evident that the
applicant's chain of command attempted to rehabilitate him through
counseling and NJP action, and that he failed to respond positively to
these efforts.  As a result, it is concluded that his discharge accurately
reflects his overall record of service and it would not be appropriate to
upgrade it at this late date.

4.  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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__WDP _  __MJF___  __SJS   _  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.




                                  _____William D. Powers_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070010290                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/12/26                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1972/01/18                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-212                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unsuitability (Apathy)                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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