RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           19 January 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040000176


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Bernard P. Ingold             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Larry C. Bergquist            |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Delia R. Trimble              |     |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 from the Army National Guard (ARNG) be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he wants to get back involved in
the military as an officer.  He states he had a prior honorable discharge;
he has been a good citizen since his discharge; his ability to serve was
impaired by his deprived background, financial problems, his use of
alcohol, and because he was not working in the field for which he trained;
the punishment he got was too severe compared with today's standards and
the punishment he got at discharge was too harsh; he tried to serve and
wanted to but just could not or was not able to; and his enlistment option
was not satisfied or waived.

3.  The applicant provides a Self-Help Guide to Discharge Upgrading and a
DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the
Armed Forces of the United States).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 11 July 1985.  The application submitted in this case is dated
23 March 2004.

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.  The applicant enlisted in the ARNG on 3 September 1976.  He was ordered
to initial active duty for training on 20 March 1977 and was honorably
released from active duty for training on 30 June 1977 after being awarded
military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).

4.  The applicant was honorably separated from the ARNG on 22 January 1980
and involuntarily ordered to active duty for failing to fulfill the
satisfactory participation requirements.  He was given a reporting date of
23 January 1980 to
his active duty station.  He did not report to his active duty unit, was
dropped
from the unit rolls effective 21 February 1980, and was dropped from the
rolls of the Army effective 5 March 1981.

5.  The applicant enlisted in the ARNG on 9 July 1984 for 3 years.  His DD
Form 1966/7 (Application for Enlistment - Armed Forces of the United
States) shows he enlisted for MOS 11B1O.  (His DD Form 1966/2 shows he had
honorable service in the ARNG from 3 September 1976 through 22 January 1980
and honorable service in the U. S. Army Reserve Control Group from 23
January 1980 through 8 July 1984.)  He was assigned to Company C, 1st
Battalion, 178th Infantry, Chicago, IL.

6.  By letter dated 28 June 1985, the applicant was notified he had accrued
         9 unexcused absences within a 1-year period.  He was informed he
could be declared an unsatisfactory participant.  He did not respond to the
letter.

7.  The separation packet is not available.  On 11 July 1985, he was
discharged from the ARNG and as a Reserve of the Army with a general under
honorable conditions characterization of service for unsatisfactory
participation.

8.  Army Regulation 135-91 (Service Obligations, Methods of Fulfillment,
Participation Requirements, and Enforcement Procedures) states that
enlisted Soldiers who are obligated by statute or contract will be charged
with unsatisfactory participation when, without proper authority, they
accrue in any     1-year period a total of 9 or more unexcused absences
from scheduled drills.

9.  Army Regulation 135-178 (Separation of Enlisted Personnel), section
VII, in effect at the time, provided for the discharge or transfer to the
U. S. Army Reserve Control Group (Annual Training) of statutorily obligated
enlisted members who failed to participate satisfactorily in unit training
as required.  The regulation applied[s] to enlisted Soldiers of the Army
National Guard of the United States and the U. S. Army Reserve.  In
pertinent part, it stated that the honorable characterization of service
was appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally met the
standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for military
personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization
would be clearly inappropriate.  A general discharge was warranted when
significant negative aspects of the Soldier's conduct or performance
outweighed positive aspects of the Soldier's military record.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's honorable service while on initial active duty for
training is noted.  It is also noted that, while he was given an honorable
characterization of service when he separated from the ARNG on 22 January
1980, he had been separated because he was an unsatisfactory participant
and was involuntarily ordered to active duty.  It is also noted that he did
not report to his active duty station and he was dropped from the rolls of
the Army in March 1981.

2.  The applicant provides no evidence of his subsequent good citizenship.
In any case, good post-service conduct alone does not warrant granting the
relief requested.

3.  Since the applicant did have a prior honorable separation, his
contention that his ability to serve was impaired by his deprived
background does not appear to have any merit.

4.  The applicant provides no evidence to show he had financial problems or
alcohol problems or that, if he had, that he brought those problems to the
attention of his chain of command.  He provides no evidence to show that he
tried to serve but could not or was not able to.

5.  The applicant provides no evidence to show he was not working in the
field for which he trained or that his enlistment option was not satisfied
or waived.  He was a trained infantryman, he reenlisted for MOS 11B, and he
was assigned to an infantry unit.

6.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed 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.  The type of discharge given was
commensurate with his record of unsatisfactory participation.

7.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 11 July 1985; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on         10 July 1988.  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 timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__bpi___  __lcb___  __drt___  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.




            __Bernard P. Ingold___
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040000176                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050119                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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