RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        12 June 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070000289


      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. Deyon D. Battle               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. LaVerne Douglas               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Edward Montgomery             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Rea Nuppenau                  |     |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 general discharge be upgraded to an
honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he was told that after 2 years his general
discharge would be changed to an honorable discharge.  He states that he
cannot get a student loan with a general discharge.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 9 January 1976.  The application submitted in this case
is dated 21 December 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 15 November 1973, the applicant enlisted in the United States Army
Reserve, under the Delayed Entry Program, in Chicago, Illinois, for
6 years, in the pay grade of E-1.  He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3
years on 27 November 1973 and he successfully completed his training as a
mechanic maintenance helper.

4.  The applicant's records show that he was counseled by members in his
chain of command on approximately thirteen separate occasions between
19 March 1975 and 20 November 1975 for failure to secure his weapon and gas
mask; being absent without leave (AWOL); indebtedness; misconduct in the
billets; personal problems; and failure to walk guard duty properly.





5.  His records also show that nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed
against him on 22 September 1975 for being derelict in the performance of
his duties by negligently leaving behind and failing to secure his United
States Army .45 caliber submachine gun and protective mask.  His punishment
consisted of a reduction in pay grade, a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

6.  The applicant was AWOL from 4 November 1975 until 5 November 1975.  On
17 November 1975, the applicant's status changed from present for duty to
confinement by civil authorities.  On 21 November 1975, his status changed
from confinement by civil authorities to AWOL and he remained absent until
24 November 1975.  The records are unclear as to the type of punishment
that he received regarding these incidents.

7.  On 2 December 1975, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation
and he was determined to be mentally responsible; able to distinguish right
from wrong; able to adhere to the right; and to have the mental capacity to
understand and participate in board proceedings.

8.  On 11 December 1975, his status changed from present for duty to
confinement by civil authorities.

9.  The applicant was notified on 31 December 1975, that he was being
recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
chapter 13, for unsuitability.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification
and he indicated that he understood that if he were to be discharged under
other than honorable conditions, he may be furnished an Undesirable
Discharge Certificate and that he would be deprived of many or all Army
benefits administered by the Veterans Administration.  He also acknowledged
that he may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both
Federal and State Law.  The applicant acknowledged that he was informed
that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if
he was furnished an undesirable or a general discharge.

10.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on
5 January 1976 and he recommended the issuance of a General Discharge
Certificate.  Accordingly, on 9 January 1976, the applicant was discharged
under honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-
200, chapter 13-5b, for unsuitability.  He had completed 2 years and 4 days
of total active service and he was furnished a General Discharge
Certificate.

11.  A review of the available records fails 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.

12.  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 unsuitability, 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 all the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant's contentions have been noted.  However, there is no
evidence in the available record nor has the applicant submitted any
evidence that indicates that he was informed that his discharge would be
upgraded to fully honorable after 2 years.  The applicant had NJP imposed
against him and he was counseled on at least thirteen separate occasions as
a result of his acts of indiscipline.  The character of his discharge
properly reflects his overall record of service and the fact that he has a
desire to apply for a student loan is not sufficiently mitigating to
warrant the relief requested.

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 9 January 1976; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 8 January 1976.  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

__LD  ___  ___EM__  ___RN __  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.




                                  ____ LaVerne Douglas_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070000289                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070612                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19760109                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |CHAPTER 13                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  360  |144.0000/ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE       |
|2.  369                 |144.0135/DISCHARGED W/GD                |
|3.  547                 |144.4000/UNSUITABILITY                  |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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