RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        16 August 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070005294


      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:

|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. William Blakely               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Donald L. Lewy                |     |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 at the time of his discharge, he was very
young and hardheaded.  He states that he knows that he did some things that
a person in the military should not do; however, be believes that after 20
years of being out of the service, he has waited long enough to have his
discharge upgraded.  He states that this is the one thing that he would
like to do before he leaves this earth.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 26 September 1986.  The application submitted in this
case is dated 19 March 2007.

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 16 November 1983, the applicant enlisted in the Army in Dallas,
Texas, for 3 years, in the pay grade of E-2.  He successfully completed his
training as a food service specialist.  He was promoted to the pay grade of
E-3 on 1 November 1984.

4.  The available records show that the applicant was counseled on at least
ten separate occasions between 13 July 1984 and 17 January 1986, for
failure to repair; failure to perform his duties; failure to shave; having
his driving privileges revoked; and performance, reclassification and
discharge.  During his



counseling sessions, he was told that his behavior would not be tolerated
and that his actions could lead to action being taken against him under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice and possible discharge.

5.  Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on
10 June 1985, for wrongfully using provoking words to a noncommissioned
officer (NCO). His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade
(suspended until 9 August 1985) and extra duty.

6.  On 17 January 1986, NJP was imposed against him for being disrespectful
in language towards an NCO.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay
grade, a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

7.  On 29 January 1986, the applicant was notified that he was being barred
from reenlistment.  His commander cited his two records of NJP; the 10
records of counseling; and a dishonored check notification dated 18 July
1984, that he had written to the Post Exchange in the amount of $6.00.

8.  The applicant had NJP imposed against him on 22 August 1986, for
willfully disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment consisted of extra
duty.

9.  On 8 September 1986, the applicant was notified that he was being
recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
chapter 14-12b, due to patterns of misconduct.  He acknowledged receipt of
the notification on 9 September 1986 and, after consulting with counsel, he
waived his rights and he opted not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

10.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on
17 September 1986 and he directed the issuance of a General Discharge
Certificate.  Accordingly, on 26 September 1986, the applicant was
discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12b,
due to patterns of misconduct.  He had completed 2 years, 10 months and 12
days of net 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 14 establishes policy and
prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific
categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct,
commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities,
desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a
member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is
impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.

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 contention that he was young and immature at the time
that he served on active duty is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant
relief.  The Board notes that the applicant was 18 years old at the time of
his enlistment into the RA as are a great number of individuals who served
in the RA without incident and truly earned an Honorable Discharge
Certificate.

4.  The applicant was counseled on at least ten separate occasions and he
had NJP imposed against him three times as a result of his acts of
misconduct.  Considering his numerous acts of indiscipline, it appears that
his general discharge properly characterizes his overall record of service
as his service was not totally honorable.

5.  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.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.

7.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 26 September 1986; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 25 September 1989.  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

__DLL___  __WDP__  __WB___  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.




                                  ___William D. Powers__
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070005294                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070816                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  626  |144.6000/MISCONDUCT                     |
|2.  672                 |144.6750/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT          |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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