RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        4 March 2008
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070015097


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Jerome L. Pionk               |     |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 that his discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states he was told his discharge would be upgraded to
honorable after 6 months.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

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.  After having had prior service in the U. S. Army Reserve, the applicant
enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 April 1981.  He was promoted to
Specialist Four, E-4 on 1 June 1983 in military occupational specialty 84B
(Still Photographic Specialist).

3.  On 5 April 1985, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for disobeying a lawful
command from his superior commissioned officer.  His punishment was a
reduction to Private, E-1 and a forfeiture of $300.00 pay for two months.

4.  The court-martial charge sheet is not available.  Only the approval
authority’s action on the applicant’s request for discharge for the good of
the service in lieu of court-martial is available.

5.  On 12 July 1985, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s
request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
chapter 10 and directed he be issued a Discharge Under Other Than Honorable
Conditions Certificate.

6.  On 22 July 1985, the applicant completed a mental status evaluation and
was found to be mentally responsible and to have the mental capacity to
understand and participate in proceedings.

7.  On 22 July 1985, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the
service in lieu of court-martial with a discharge under other than
honorable conditions.  He had completed a total of 4 years, 10 months, and
1 day of creditable active service with no lost time.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides,
in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses
for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at
any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for
discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred
and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  A discharge under
other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

9.  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, or is
otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly
inappropriate.

10.  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.

11.  The U. S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to
automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits
when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted
if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason
for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Except for the approval authority’s action, the applicant’s discharge
packet is not available.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is
presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with
law and regulations applicable at the time and that the applicant’s
characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions was
commensurate with the offense(s) charged and his overall record of service.

2.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence that would warrant granting
the relief requested.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jea___  __wdp___  __jlp___  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.




                                  __James E. Anderholm__
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070015097                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |YYYYMMDD                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19850722                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, ch 10                       |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |A70.00                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)          |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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