RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           31 March 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040004466


      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             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald J. Weaver              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Leonard G. Hassell            |     |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 (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he believes he deserves an HD
because he was told after so much time passed he could get an HD.

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that on 16 May 1984.  The application submitted in this case was received
on 15 July 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 limitations 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 3 November 1983, the applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard
(ARNG) for six years.  On 17 November 1983, he entered active duty to
complete his initial active duty for training (IADT).  He successfully
completed one station unit training at Fort Benning, Georgia and was
awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11H (Heavy Anti-Armor Weapons
Crewman).

4.  On 8 March 1984, the applicant was honorably released from active duty
(REFRAD) and returned to his ARNG unit, which was Company C, 1/102nd
Infantry, Middletown, Connecticut.  The separation document (DD Form 214)
he was issued at this time confirms he received the Army Service Ribbon and
Sharpshooter Qualification Badge with Rifle, Hand Grenade and Tow Gunner
Bars.

5.  Undelivered certified letters sent to the applicant, dated 7, 15 and 16
May 1984, are on file in the applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket
(MPRJ).  These letters confirm the applicant missed scheduled unit training
assemblies on 5, 6, 14 and 15 May 1984.
6.  A separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances
surrounding the applicant’s separation processing is not on file in the
record. However, there is an National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 on file
that confirms the applicant was separated under the provisions of paragraph
7-10r, National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 on 16 May 1984.

7.  NGR 600-200, in effect at the time, provided the policy for discharging
members from the ARNG.  Paragraph 7-10r provided the policy for discharging
enlisted members for continuous and willful absence from military duty.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that he believes he deserves an HD because
he was told that after time passed, his discharge would be upgraded was
carefully considered.  However, a discharge upgrade is not automatic.  A
discharge may be upgraded if a duly constituted board determines a
discharge was improper or inequitable.  This determination is made based on
the merits of each individual application submitted to a board empowered to
review discharges.  The Army does not now have, nor has it ever had a
policy to automatically upgrade discharges due to the passage of time.

2.  The applicant’s record is void of a discharge packet containing the
specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge
processing.  However, there is a properly constituted NGB Form 22 on file.
This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge
and carries with it a presumption of Government regularity in the discharge
process.

3.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that all requirements
of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were
protected throughout the separation process.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 16 May 1984.  Therefore, the time for
him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on
15 May 1987.  However, he failed to 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

___WDP_  __RJW__  ___LGH _  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.




            ____William D. Powers____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040004466                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/03/31                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1984/05/16                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |Paragraph 7-10r NGR 600-200             |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Continual willful absence from UTA      |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.000                                 |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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