RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        27 September 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070006481


      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. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Chester A. Damian             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Edward E. Montgomery          |     |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 joined the military and that he had bad
habits from the streets, no communications skills, no goals, and wanted to
run wild.  He states that since then, he has changed drastically.

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 16 January 1985, the applicant enlisted in the Army in Chicago,
Illinois, for 4 years, in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed
his training as a tactical microwave systems repairer.  He was promoted to
the pay grade of E-2 on 16 July 1985.

3.  On 31 January 1986, the applicant was counseled regarding poor duty
performance, disobeying orders from his superiors, and failure to repair.
He was informed that since his assignment, his duty performance had been
less than desirable.  He was informed that he had been late for formation;
his attitude toward his chain of command had been less than respectful; his
maintenance practices were not up to unit or Army standards; and he did not
know how or he had no desire to use technical material required by the
Army.  He was told that his supervisors had to constantly check on him and
look for him at places other than his place of duty; that his work was slow
and usually had to be completed by
others; and that he failed to obey orders on two separate occasions.  The
applicant was told that he was to obey all lawful orders issued by those
with more rank and that any reoccurrence would result in action being taken
against him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  He was informed
that until his attitude and performance improved, he would not be
recommended for promotion to the pay grade of E-3.

4.  On 6 February 1986, the applicant was counseled for failure to repair.
He was told that it had been less than 2 weeks since he had been counseled
for poor performance of duty.  He was told that a recommendation would be
made to the commander to impose a bar to reenlistment against him for poor
performance and to recommend him for elimination from the service.

5.  Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on
11 April 1986 for failure to obey lawful orders by senior noncommissioned
officers on two occasions.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the
pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay in the amount of $150.00, restriction
for 14 days, and extra duty for 14 days.

6.  A bar to reenlistment was imposed against the applicant again on 21
April 1986.  As the basis for the bar to reenlistment, the commander cited
the NJP that was imposed against him on 11 April 1986; counseling for
destruction of personal property of another Soldier on 21 November 1985;
insubordination on
4 December 1985; poor duty performance on 31 January 1986; failure to
repair on 12 February 1986; and insubordination on 5 March 1986.

7.  On 22 April 1986, the applicant was counseled regarding a bar to
reenlistment.  He was informed that effective 21 April 1986, a bar to
reenlistment had been imposed.  He was also informed that if he believed
that he could not overcome the bar to reenlistment, he may apply for
discharge in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200.  The applicant was
told that the bar to reenlistment would be reviewed every six months or 30
days prior to a permanent change of station or expiration term of service.

8.  On 25 April 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 acts or patterns of misconduct.  He acknowledged
receipt of the
notification on 7 May 1986 and after consulting with counsel, he submitted
a statement in his own behalf.  In his undated statement he requested that
he be allowed to "depart" from the Army with an honorable discharge and
continue his career in civilian life.  He stated that he would forget the
personal conflict with his
first sergeant and the time he spent in advanced individual training just
to be departed from the Army.  He stated that he wanted to pursue his
education and that he would like to be furnished an honorable discharge.

9.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on
9 May 1986 and he directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.
 Accordingly, on 10 June 1986, the applicant was discharged under the
provisions of Army Regulation 6350-200, chapter 14-12b, for misconduct, due
to a pattern of misconduct, with a General Discharge Certificate.  He had
completed 1 year,
4 months, and 25 days of net active service.

10.  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.

11.  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 contentions have been noted.  However, the fact that he
had habits from the streets, no communication skills, and no goals are not
sufficiently mitigating to warrant the relief requested.  The applicant was
counseled
numerous times regarding his acts of misconduct.  He was provided many
opportunities to soldier and he opted not to do so.  Considering his
numerous acts of indiscipline it does not appear that his general discharge
was too severe as his overall service was not completely honorable.

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

__RTD___  __CAD__  __EEM__  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.




                                  ___Richard T. Dunbar____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070006481                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070927                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  360  |144.0000/ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE       |
|2.  626                 |144.6000/MISCONDUCT                     |
|3.  672                 |144.6750/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT          |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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