RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        13 September 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070005879


      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. Thomas A. Pagan               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Eric N. Anderson              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Paul M. Smith                 |     |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 Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) be corrected to show that he has a
General Education Development (GED) diploma; and that he was absent without
leave (AWOL) for only 24 hours.  He also requests that his general
discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he was 1 hour late of formation to watch over
his children.  He states that due to his hardship in his last duty station
his estranged wife made it difficult for him to perform his duties.  He
states that he is in excellent condition and very interested in serving his
country again.  He states that he could not perform his duties because he
was separated from and worried about his wife and children.  He states that
his superiors lacked consideration for his situation.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation 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.  On 20 March 1980, the applicant enlisted in the United States Army
Reserve (USAR) for 6 years in the pay grade of E-1.  At the time of his
enlistment he completed an application for enlistment in which he indicated
that he did not graduate from high school.  He enlisted in the Regular Army
(RA) on 3 April 1980 and he went on to successfully complete his training
as a nuclear, biological, and chemical specialist.



3.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 3 October 1980; he was
promoted to the pay grade of E-3 on 10 March 1981; and he was promoted to
the pay grade of E-4 on 2 April 1982.

4.  The applicant reenlisted in the RA for 6 years on 22 April 1982.

5.  On 3 April 1984, the applicant was counseled for personal misconduct
due to being indebted to the American Book Distributors in the sum of
$789.50.  He was informed that he was over $165.00 behind in payments after
making an agreement to make payment in the amount of $33.00 per month.
According to the counseling statement, the loan arrangement was made on 22
July 1983 and, as of the date of his counseling, he had made no payments.
The applicant was directed to write a letter to the firm and made the
proper arrangement to bring this matter up to date.  The applicant was also
informed that he was indebted to the German telephone company in the amount
of Deutsche Marks (DM) 1449,28 and that his bill was dated 31 August 1983.
He was directed to make proper arrangements to pay the overdue bill.  He
was informed that he was indebted to the Jolly Furniture Company in the
amount of DM 4688,14 plus any and all late charges and court costs that had
been taken against him.  He was told that the Jolly Furniture Company had
contacted the German courts system and demanded that a payment order be
started against him.  He was direct to contact the Jolly Furniture Company
and settle the overdue matter.

6.  Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on
29 May 1984, for being AWOL from 7 May 1984 until 9 May 1984.  His
punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3 (to be
automatically remitted if not vacated before 29 November 1984), a
forfeiture of pay, and extra duty.

7.  On 1 June 1984, NJP was imposed against the applicant for presenting
for approval and payment, a false claim against the United States in the
amount of $18.24 and for stealing $18.24, the property of the United States
Government.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-
3, a forfeiture of pay, restriction, and extra duty.

8.  On 4 June 1984, the applicant was counseled regarding his below
standard performance and conduct.  He was informed that his infractions and
problems may result in his elimination from the Army.





9.  On 6 June 1984, the applicant was taken to the legal office and advised
that he was in default of payment, by second notice, on his furniture
purchased through Jolly Sales.  During his counseling, he was informed that
his furniture would be picked up from his residence by Jolly Sales unless
he negotiated directly with and in writing to Jolly Sales.  He was advised
to check his budget and see what he could afford to pay monthly to Jolly
Sales on his furniture and to contact Jolly Sales and negotiate further
payments.  He was told that if he needed help with calculating his budget,
to consult with his platoon sergeant.

10.  On 21 June 1984, the applicant was notified that he was being
recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  His commander cited his
unwillingness to conform to military standards and his failure to respond
to counseling and efforts by his superiors to help him correct his
deficiencies as the basis for the recommendation for discharge.

11.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the recommendation on 25 June
1984.  After consulting with counsel, indicated that he was submitting
statements in his own behalf.  However, the statements that he submitted
are not on file.

12.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on
13 August 1984 and he directed that the applicant be eliminated from the
United States Army for unsuitability and furnished a General Discharge
Certificate.

13.  On 10 October 1984, the applicant was discharged under honorable
conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13,
for unsuitability, based on unsatisfactory performance.  He had completed 4
years, 6 months, and 7 days of net active service this period and he was
furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

14.  Item number 17 (Civilian Education and Military Schools) on the
applicant's Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) shows that the
applicant did not complete high school.

15.  Item number 16 on the DD Form 214 that the applicant was furnished at
the time of his discharge indicates that he was not a high school graduate
or equivalent.

16.  Item number 29 of the applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates that he had
lost time from 8 May 1984 to 8 May 1984.


17.  A review of the available records fails to show that the applicant
earned a GED diploma either prior to his enlistment in the Army or while he
was on active duty.

18.  Army Regulation 635-5 serves as the authority for the preparation of
the DD Form 214.  It provides, in pertinent part, that the DD Form 214 will
be prepared to provide a brief, clear-cut record of active duty service at
the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge.

19.  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 unsatisfactory
performance, 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.  There is no documentation in the available records, nor has the
applicant submitted in documentation to show that he applicant had a GED
diploma at the time of his discharge from the Army.  Therefore, his DD Form
214 was properly annotated to indicate that was not a high school graduate.

2.  In regard to the 24 hours of lost time that the applicant contends that
he had, his DD Form 214 currently reflects that he had only 1 day of lost
time.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting this portion of the
applicant's request.

3.  The applicant's contentions regarding his discharge have been noted.
However, his records show that he was counseled numerous times for
indebtedness and for his poor performance.  He had NJP imposed against him
for being AWOL and for filing a false claim against the government.
Considering his numerous acts of indiscipline, it does not appear that his
general discharge is too harsh, as it properly reflects his overall record
of service.

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.



BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__TAP___  __ENA__  __PMS__  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.




                                  ____Thomas A. Pagan___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070005879                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070913                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  1021 |100.0000/ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS         |
|2.  260                 |123.0000/LOST TIME                      |
|3.  189                 |110.0000/DISCHARGE DOCUMENT             |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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