RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           9 March 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003090930


      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             |
|     |Ms. Rosa M. Chandler              |     |Analyst              |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Shirley L. Powell             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Barbara J. Ellis              |     |Member               |

      The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

      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 essence, that his NGB Form 22 (National
Guard Bureau-Report of Separation and Record of Service in the Army
National Guard of Florida), issued on 18 July 1974 be upgraded from that of
a general discharge under honorable conditions to a fully honorable
discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he had a 1-year contract with the
Army National Guard of Florida with the understanding that he could resign
at anytime and that he submitted his resignation because he could not
adjust to the lack of discipline that was demonstrated by unit personnel.

3.  The applicant provides in support of his request a copy of his DD Form
214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for
the period 11 January 1971-11 January 1973.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an error or injustice which
occurred on 18 July 1974.  The application submitted in this case is dated
7 May 2003.

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 limitation 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.  Prior to the period of service under review the applicant served
honorably in the Regular Army from 11 January 1971-11 January 1973 and, on
12 January 1973, he was transferred to the United States Army Reserve
(USAR).  On 2 November 1973, he was honorably separated for immediate
enlistment in the Army National Guard of Florida.

4.  On 3 November 1973, he enlisted in the Army National Guard of Florida
for a period of 1 year in his previous military occupational specialty 63B
(Wheel Vehicle Mechanic) and in pay grade E-5.  At the time of enlistment,
the applicant authenticated his enlistment contract to acknowledge that he
voluntarily enlisted in the Army National Guard of Florida and that he
agreed to remain a member of the Ready Reserve during the period of
enlistment unless sooner relieved by proper authority.

5.  On 13 April 1974 in a handwritten statement to his unit, the applicant
indicated he had not found the Army National Guard of Florida to be
rewarding or noteworthy of investing his time.  He stated there was a lack
of morale, interest, and professionalism and that this statement was his
official resignation from the Army National Guard of Florida.  He also
requested that he be advised when he could turn in any necessary equipment
and complete the appropriate paperwork.

6.  On 1 May 1974, the applicant was advised his resignation format was
insufficient for release from the Army National Guard of Florida and that
he should contact the appropriate personnel office for guidance.  He was
also advised of the date and time of the next training assembly and that,
if he were absent without leave (AWOL), disciplinary action could be taken.


7.  The applicant's record does not contain all of the facts surrounding
the separation process.  However, on 18 July 1974, the applicant's
commander requested that the applicant be discharged.  The commander cited
the reason for the request was that, on 13 April 1974, the applicant
offered a letter of resignation and he was informed that it was not
submitted in accordance with regulation and that he was required to
resubmit a new request.  After a verbal confirmation, the applicant was put
on leave for the training assembly from
4-5 May 1974 pending resubmission of his request for discharge.  The
applicant failed to resubmit his request and on 22 May 1974, he was
personally contacted and advised that he was required to resubmit his
request for discharge or report to the next scheduled training assembly
which was 1-2 June 1974.  The applicant neither responded nor reported to
the training assembly.  Effective 3 June 1974, the applicant was reduced
from pay grade E-5 to pay grade E-4 for being AWOL and failing to maintain
the standards of efficiency required of his grade. On 5 June 1974, by
certified mail, the applicant was advised he would be reported to the
Adjutant General, State of Florida, for unsatisfactory participation if he
was AWOL from any further training assemblies during the remainder of the
year.  On 28 June 1974, the applicant refused to claim the certified mail.
He was AWOL from training assembly again from 13-14 July 1974 and he was
reduced from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-3 due to unsatisfactory
participation.

8.  On 18 July 1974, the applicant was separated from the Army National
Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) with a general discharge.  He had
completed
8 months and 16 days of creditable service in the (ARNGUS).  He was
transferred to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training).  Effective 10
January 1977, he was issued a general discharge from the USAR.

9.  National Guard Regulation 600-200 and Army Regulation 135-91 govern
procedures covering enlisted personnel management of the Army National
Guard.  Chapter 8 of this regulation cover, in pertinent part, reasons for
discharge and separation of enlisted personnel from the State Army Reserve
National Guard.  Paragraph 8-27(g) of that regulation provides in pertinent
part that individuals can be separated for being an unsatisfactory
participant.  Army Regulation 135-91 states that a member is an
unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from
scheduled drills occurs during a 1-year period.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was appropriately separated in accordance with the
regulations in effect at the time due to unsatisfactory participation and
transferred to the USAR Control group (Annual Training).  In January 1977,
he was appropriately discharged from the USAR with a general discharge.

2.  At the time of enlistment, the applicant authenticated a document in
which he acknowledged he understood he was required to participate in the
Ready Reserve during the period of enlistment unless relieved by proper
authority.  There is no evidence to indicate that he met these
requirements.

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 18 July 1974; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 17 July 1977.  However, 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 file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__sac___  __slp___  __bje___  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.



                 Samuel A. Crumpler
            ______________________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003090930                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040309                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(GD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19740718                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |NGR 600-200                             |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |