RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           29 March 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040002503


      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. Melvin H. Meyer               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr.        |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Susan A. Powers               |     |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 general discharge (GD) under honorable
conditions be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that at age 17 and 18 he was unable to
control his drinking.  The GD that he received has hindered his ability to
obtain gainful, meaningful employment since he was separated.  He has held
38 dead-end jobs, one after another.  Now, he is in prison and he wants a
fresh start when he gets out.  He believes an honorable discharge will help
him get his life back on track.

3.  The applicant provides in support of his request a:

      a.  General Discharge Certificate and DD Form 214 (Certificate or
Discharge from Active Duty).


      b.  Social Security Statement and Itemized Statement of Earnings.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 15 November 1982.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 1 June 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 9 July 1981, the applicant’s mother signed a declaration of parental
consent for him to enlist in the military.  On 20 October 1981, at age 17,
the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years and training in
military occupational specialty (MOS) 19E (Armor Crewman).  He completed
training requirements, he was awarded MOS 19E, and he was assigned to
Germany on 28 February 1982 with duties in his MOS.

4.  On 28 June 1982, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), was imposed against
the applicant for being drunk while on duty as a crewmember of a tank
engaged in firing live ammunition.  His punishment included a forfeiture of
$103.00 pay for
1 month, and 7 days of extra duty and restriction.

5.  On 1 October 1982, NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, was
imposed against the applicant for willfully and wrongfully causing 500
Deutschmarks in damage to a privately owned vehicle by breaking a window
and tearing out dash wires, property of a German National, on 1 October
1982.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-2 to E-1 and 14
days of extra duty and restriction.

6.  A document in the applicant's service records shows that, on 28 October
1982, the Clinical Director of the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and
Control Program (ADAPCP) declared him a rehabilitation failure.  A summary
of the applicant's rehabilitation shows that, on 25 April 1982, he self-
referred to the ADAPCP and, on 25 June 1982, he enrolled in Track II for
counseling.  Initially, he appeared to make a sincere effort toward meeting
treatment goals.  He attended six individual counseling sessions, two
education sessions, and the counselor conducted three command
consultations.  However, in September 1982, his motivation seemed to
decline sharply subsequent to two incidents; one incident involved a
positive urinalysis for Tetrahydrocannabinol (psychoactive compound in
marijuana) and the second incident involved alcohol and fighting.  The
ADAPCP Clinical Director believed the applicant was demonstrating rebellion
towards making a sincere rehabilitation effort and that he failed to
demonstrate willingness to rehabilitate.  The ADAPCP staff believed that
continued treatment would not have been practical and supported declaring
the applicant a rehabilitation failure.

7.  On 29 October 1982, a mental status evaluation determined the applicant
was qualified for separation.  On 8 November 1982, a medical examination
cleared the applicant for separation.

8.  On 1 November 1982, the applicant's commander notified him that he was
being declared an alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure and that he was
being recommended for discharge under the provisions of chapter 9, Army
Regulation 635-200.

9.  An undated statement shows the applicant declined further legal
counsel.  He was advised of the basis for the contemplated action, its
effects, and the rights available to him.  He acknowledged that he
understood the ramifications of receiving a less than fully honorable
discharge.  The applicant also declined to submit a statement in his own
behalf.  He was not entitled to consideration by, or a personal appearance
before a board of officers.

10.  On an unknown date, competent authority approved the recommendation
and directed the issuance of a GD, by reason of alcohol abuse
rehabilitation failure under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation
635-200.

11.  On 15 November 1982, the applicant was discharged with a GD under the
provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of alcohol
rehabilitation failure.  He completed 1 year and 26 days of active military
service on the enlistment under review and he had completed 3 months and 7
days of prior inactive military service.  He had no recorded lost time.

12.  The available evidence does not show the applicant has ever applied to
the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge
within the ADRB's 15-year statute of limitation.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 9 contains the authority and
outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or
other drug abuse.  A member who has been referred to the ADAPCP for
alcohol/drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to
participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program.  A
member may also be separated if there is a lack of potential for continued
Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical.  Army
policy states that an HD or a GD is authorized depending on the applicant’s
overall record of service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was self-referred to the ADAPCP and he violated the
requirements to remain in the ADAPCP by continuing to drink alcohol and use
drugs.

2.  The applicant was properly separated in accordance with chapter 9, Army
Regulation 635-200, which governs those Soldiers involved in alcohol or
drug related incidents while enrolled in ADAPCP.

3.  The available evidence supports that the reason for discharge and the
characterization of service were both proper and equitable.  A basis for
relief must be established, relief is not granted solely for the purpose of
gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities

4.  The applicant met entrance qualification standards, to include age with
a waiver.  Further, the applicant was no less mature than other Soldiers of
the same age whom completed their military obligation.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 15 November 1982; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 14 November 1985.  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

__mhm___  __phm___  __sap___  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.



                                  Melvin H. Meyer
            ______________________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040002503                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050326                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(GD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19821115                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200, Chap 9                       |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |A45.00                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.4500                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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