RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          17 March 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040001828


      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. John E. Denning               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Joe R. Schroeder              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded
to that of an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he was a very good medic and Soldier and that
he was separated with a UD, due to an addiction problem.  He also states
that he is on daily methadone maintenance treatment.

3.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 24 November 1970.  The application submitted in this case
is dated 8 April 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.  On 10 July 1969, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3
years.  He completed the training requirements and was awarded military
occupational specialty (MOS) 91A (Medical Corpsman).  On 5 December 1969,
he was assigned to Fort Carson, Colorado with duties in his MOS.

4.  On 14 November 1969, nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions
of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, was imposed against the
applicant for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time
prescribed on
13 November 1969.  His punishment-included a forfeiture of $17.00 pay per
month for 1 month and 7 days of extra duty and restriction.

5.  The applicant was absent without leave from his unit from 30 May to 29
June 1970 and from 12 July to 15 September 1970 until he returned to
military control at Fort Meade, Maryland.  On 16 September 1970, the
applicant declined to make a statement and to consult with a legal
representative.

6.  On 16 October 1970, a mental status evaluation determined that the
applicant was oriented, relevant, coherent and logical.  The applicant
alleged that he had been on heroin since age fourteen; he had made numerous
attempts to stop;
and that he was on methadone at the time.  The applicant was mentally
cleared for all administrative judicial disposition deemed fit by the
command.  On
4 November 1970, a medical examination determined the applicant was
qualified for separation.

7.  The applicant's records no longer contain his notification of the
recommendation for separation.  However, on 12 November 1970, the
applicant's unit commander requested that further rehabilitation
requirements be waived and that the applicant be separated under the
provisions of 635-212 for unfitness with a UD.

8.  On 14 November 1970, the approval authority waived further
rehabilitative requirements and directed that the applicant be separated
under the provisions of 635-212 for unfitness with a UD in pay grade E-1.

9.  On 24 November 1970, the applicant was discharged.  His records do not
contain all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge
process; however, they do contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 signed
by the applicant at the time of discharge.  The applicant’s DD Form 214
shows that he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-
212, due to unfitness with a UD.  He had completed 1 year, 1 month, and 6
days of active military service and he had 99 days of lost time due to
being AWOL.

10.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year
statute of limitation.

11.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who were found to be
unfit or unsuitable for military service.  The regulation further provided,
in pertinent part, that service members discharged for unfitness would
normally be furnished a UD unless circumstances warranted a general or
honorable discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The available records show that the applicant was discharged under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness with a UD.  The
applicant's notification of recommendation for separation letter was not
available for review.  However, the Board presumes regularity in the
discharge process.  The applicant has provided no information that would
indicate the contrary.
2.  The applicant's service record fully supports both the reason for
discharge and the characterization of his service.

3.  The applicant's post service achievements are noted.  However, these
accomplishments do not overcome the fact that he diminished the quality of
his service below that meriting an honorable discharge when he knowingly,
violated the Army's drug abuse policies and used illegal drugs.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 24 November 1970; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
23 November 1973.  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

__jed___  __jrs___  __mjf___  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.



                                        John E. Denning
                                   ______________________
                         CHAIRPERSON






                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040001828                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050317                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19701124                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-212                               |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |A60.00                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.6000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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