RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         13 April 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050013792


      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.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. David K. Hassenritter         |     |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 general, under honorable
conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge indicates it was
based on a pattern of misconduct; however, he was released because he had a
pay problem that he was unable to resolve over a five-year period.  He
claims he completed
5 years and 11 months of a 6-year enlistment that caused him undue
hardship.  He states that he and his family continue to be haunted by his
discharge.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his
application:  Self-Authored Statement; Remission or Cancellation of Debt
Request and associated documents; Request for Assistance, dated 9 December
1988; Bar to Reenlistment Rebuttal, dated 9 May 1989; Attorney Letter,
dated 11 July 1988; and Self-Authored Letter to Administrative Separation
Board (ASB).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 7 November 1990.  The application submitted in this case
is dated 15 September 2005.

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.  The applicant's record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 30 May 1987.  He was trained in, awarded, and served
in military occupational specialty (MOS) 71P (Flight Operations
Coordinator), and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty
was staff sergeant (SSG).  His Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1)
shows that during his active duty tenure, he earned the following awards:
Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM), 3rd Award; Army Service Ribbon (ASR);
Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon (NCOPDR) with
Numeral 2; Overseas Service Ribbon (OSR); Marksman Qualification Badge with
Rifle Bar; and Sharpshooter Qualification Bar with Hand Grenade Bar.  The
record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service
warranting special recognition.
4.  The applicant's record reveals a disciplinary history that includes his
acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article
15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 26 June 1989, for two
specifications of failing to go to his place of duty at the prescribed
time, and for making a false official statement.  His punishment for these
offenses was a reduction to sergeant (suspended), and extra duty for 21
days.

5.  The applicant's record also confirms that he was formally counseled on
at least 17 separate occasions between 7 March 1989 and 25 April 1990, for
a  myriad of disciplinary infractions that included the following:
disrespect to a senior Noncommissioned Officer (NCO); not providing for the
health, welfare and safety of his family; failing to report for duty
(multiple); domestic disturbance; spouse abuse (multiple); failure to meet
Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) standard; unauthorized off-duty
employment; multiple duty failures;

6.  On 5 October 1989, the applicant unit commander prepared a Bar to
Reenlistment Certificate (DA Form 4126-R) on the applicant.  The unit
commander cited the applicant’s receipt of a field grade Article 15, his
failure to manage his domestic affairs, repeated APFT failures, and
habitual tardiness as the reasons for taking the action.  On 6 November
1989, the Bar to Reenlistment on the applicant was approved by the proper
authority.

7.  In May 1990, the unit commander notified the applicant that it was his
intent to recommend his separation under the provisions of chapter 14, Army
Regulation 635-200, for misconduct.

8.  On 29 May 1990, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was
advised of the basis for the contemplated separation, the effects, the
rights available to him and the effect of a waiver of those rights.
Subsequent to receiving this counsel, the applicant elected to have his
case considered by an ASB, personal appearance before an ASB, and
consulting counsel for representation.

9.  On 1 October 1990, an ASB convened to consider the applicant's case.
The applicant was present with his counsel.  Subsequent to reviewing all
the evidence and testimony, the ASB found that the applicant should be
separated from the service with a GD.

10.  On 9 October 1990, the separation authority approved the findings and
recommendations of the ASB, and directed the applicant be separated with a
GD under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200.  On 7
November 1990, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214
he was issued at the time shows he completed a total of 12 years, 5 months,
and 8 days of active military service.
11.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army
Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within the
ADRB's 15-year statute of limitations.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) 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, and convictions by civil
authorities.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when
it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is
unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is
normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  However,
the separation authority may direct a GD if such is merited by the
Soldier’s overall record.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that he was separated for a pattern of
misconduct based on his attempts to resolve a pay problem over a five year
period, and the supporting evidence he submitted was carefully considered.
However, there is insufficient evidence to support his claim.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant's separation processing
was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All
requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the
applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  Although the applicant may have experienced a pay problem, this does
not excuse his extensive history of misconduct, which clearly diminished
the overall quality of his service below that warranting a fully honorable
discharge.  The separation authority did recognize the applicant's long
record of service by granting a GD, rather than the under other than
honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge that is normally issued to members
separated for misconduct.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, 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.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 7 November 1990, the date of his
separation.  Therefore, the time for him to file a request for correction
of any error or injustice expired on 6 November 1993.  He failed to 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

___RTD _  ___PHM_  ___DKH _  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.




                                  _____Richard T. Dunbar ____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050013792                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/04/13                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1990/11/07                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Misconduct                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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