APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the narrative reason for discharge be changed. He states, in effect, that medical doctors misdiagnosed his nervous condition. PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: He was born on 12 July 1952. He completed 12 years of formal education. On 5 September 1978, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. His Armed Forces Qualifications Test score was 60 (Category II). He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13F10 (Fire Support Specialist). On 7 March 1982, the applicant was honorably discharged after serving 3 years, 9 months and 25 days of active creditable service. On 8 March 1982, the applicant reenlisted for 6 years. In October 1985, the applicant’s medical records indicates that he was hospitalized for alcohol detoxification and for major depressive syndrome. However, particulars are missing from his file. On 2 November 1985, the applicant was barred from reenlistment. The bar was based on the applicant’s failure to manage his personal, marital and family affairs. The applicant was counseled and advised of his rights. On 6 November 1985, the applicant was evaluated by a psychiatrist. He was diagnosed with a personality disorder, chronic, dependent type, alcoholism and severe and chronic marital problems. The applicant had no physical or mental defects sufficient to warrant separation through medical channels. That report also indicated that the applicant was mentally responsible, could distinguish right from wrong, and adhere to the right. On 14 November 1985, a medical examination found the applicant physically fit for retention. On 22 November 1985, the applicant was notified that his commander was recommending a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-13, because of personality disorder with an honorable discharge. The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him. The applicant waived personal appearance, consideration, and representation by counsel before a board of officers. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but declined to do so. On 2 December 1985, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of an honorable discharge with the narrative reason for separation (personality disorder). On 18 December 1985, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-5 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200 paragraph 5-13, for personality disorder with an honorable discharge. He had completed 7 years, 3 months and 14 days of creditable active service. He was awarded the Army Achievement Medal, the Good Conduct Medal, the Army Service Ribbon and the Overseas Service Ribbon. Army Regulation 635-200 currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-13 provides, in part, when separation is because of a personality disorder, the service of a soldier separated per this paragraph will be characterized as honorable unless an entry level separation is required under chapter 3, section III. There is no evidence in the applicant’s record in support of his allegation. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 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. Failure to file within 3 years may be excused by a correction board if it finds it would be in the interest of justice to do so. DISCUSSION: The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 18 December 1985, the date the applicant was discharged. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 18 December 1988. The application is dated 31 May 1995, and the applicant has not explained or otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated by competent evidence that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to apply within the time allotted. DETERMINATION: The subject application was not submitted within the time required. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law. BOARD VOTE: EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE GRANT FORMAL HEARING CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION Karl F. Schneider Acting Director