RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        28 April 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040007747


      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. Michael J. Fowler             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John Infante                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald E. Blakely             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Peter B. Fisher               |     |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 her narrative reason for separation be
changed on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she was coerced into signing a
statement of discharge stating that she was a problem Soldier during her
enlistment.  She further states that she was told by law enforcement
officials to help them track and bust drug users or else she would have a
flawed record.

3.  The applicant provides no documentation in support of this application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 12 August 1975.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 23 September 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.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 January 1975.  She
successfully completed basic training and did not complete her advanced
individual training.

4.  On 1 August 1975, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for an unknown
incident of misconduct.

5.  On 1 August 1975, the applicant’s commander submitted a request to
discharge her under the provisions of the Expeditious Discharge Program
(EDP) of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations).  The commander
based his recommendation on the fact that her performance and conduct were
below those standards desired of military personnel.

6.  On 1 August 1975, the applicant was advised of her rights and the
effect of a waiver of those rights by her company commander.  She was also
advised of the basis for her separation under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200.  She indicated that she declined the opportunity of
requesting military counsel; that she waived consideration of her case by a
board of officers; that she did not desire to provide a statement in her
own behalf, and that she voluntarily consented to the discharge.

7.  On 6 August 1975, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation
to administratively separate the applicant and directed she receive an
general (under honorable conditions) discharge under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200 for failure to meet acceptable standards for continued
military service.  On 12 August 1975, she was separated after completing
6 months and 12 days of creditable active service.  Item 28 (Narrative and
Reason for Separation) of her DD Form 214 shows "Expeditious Discharge
Program (EDP) (Failure to Maintain Acceptable Standards for Retention).

8.  On 14 November 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered
the applicant’s request to upgrade her discharge to honorable.  The ADRB
unanimously voted to grant relief in the form of an honorable discharge.
The ADRB noted that the applicant had received one Article 15 punishment
and that the elimination action was initiated on the same day as receipt of
punishment.  The ADRB further noted a lack of documentation concerning any
counseling that she may have received and determined that her general
discharge was too harsh.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  In pertinent part at the time, it
provided that members who completed at least 6 months but less than 36
months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who
demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards
required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of
motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or
emotionally or failure to demonstrate promotion potential could be
discharged.  It provided for the expeditious elimination of substandard,
nonproductive Soldiers before board or punitive action becomes necessary.
No member would be discharged under that program unless he/she voluntarily
consented to the proposed discharge.

10.  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.  The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing
that applicants to the ADRB are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there,
and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185,
paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined
that the 3 year limit on filing to the ABCMR should commence on the date of
final action by the ADRB.  In complying with this decision, the ABCMR has
adopted the broader policy of calculating the 3-year time limit from the
date of exhaustion in any case where a lower level administrative remedy is
utilized.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no evidence and the applicant has not provided evidence that
shows she was coerced into signing a statement that she was a problem
Soldier or that law enforcement officials asked her to track and bust drug
users.  Therefore, there is no basis for this argument.  Evidence further
shows that when she was recommended for administrative separation she
declined military counsel; waived consideration by a board of officers;
elected not to provide a statement in her own behalf, and that she
voluntarily consented to EDP prior to her discharge from the service.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in
accordance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
errors that would tend to jeopardize her rights.  Evidence shows that she
was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in
effect at the time and that the ADRB later upgraded her discharge from
under honorable conditions to honorable.

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 14 November 1979, the date of the ADRB
action; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for
correction of any error or injustice expired on 13 November 1982.  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

__JI____  __REB __  __ PBF __  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 Infante _____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040007747                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |28 April 2005                           |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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