RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        16 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040010235


      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. Yvonne Foskey                 |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Melvin H. Meyer               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. James B. Gunlicks             |     |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, because of his young age, he failed to
realize the impact his discharge from the Army for misconduct would have on
his future employment with the Federal Government.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his
application: Army Discharge Review Board Letter, Resume, Lewis College of
Business Letter, Henry Ford High School Letter, Letter of Recommendation.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 6 June 1986, the date of his separation from active duty.
The application submitted in this case is dated 12 October 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's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 11 October 1960.  He was trained in and awarded
military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (infantryman).

4.  The applicant’s record shows that during his tenure on active duty, he
earned the Army Service Ribbon; Overseas Service Ribbon; Expert
Qualification Badge with Hand Grenade Bar, and Marksmanship Qualification
Badge with Rifle Bar.  His record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement or service warranting special recognition.
5.  The applicant’s record shows he was formally counseled by members of
his chain of command on nine separate occasions between 14 February 1985
and 20 May 1986, for a myriad of performance and conduct related
infractions.

6.  The applicant’s record also shows he accepted nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ) on the following three separate occasions for the offenses
indicated:  21 January 1985, for being disrespectful to a noncommissioned
officer; 22 February 1985, for leaving his appointed place of duty without
authority; willfully disobeying orders, and willfully failing to carry out
his duty assignment; 9 May 1986, for the wrongful possession of marijuana
and cocaine, wrongful possession of a live round of ammunition, wrongful
possession of paraphernalia; and for disposing of military property without
proper authority.

7.  On 20 May 1986, the applicant’s unit commander notified him that
separation action was being initiated to separate him under the provisions
of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of misconduct.  The unit
commander cited the applicant’s continuous unsatisfactory performance, and
wrongful possession of controlled substances as the basis for taking the
action.

8.  On 21 November 1986, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, and
after being advised of the basis of the contemplated separation action, he
completed his election of rights by electing to be represented by counsel
and submitting statements in his own behalf.

9.  On 23 May 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
separation and directed that he receive a GD.  On 6 June 1986, the
applicant was discharged accordingly.  At the time of his discharge, he had
completed a total of 2 years, 9 months, and 7 days of active military
service.

10.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army
Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within the 15-year
statute of limitations.
11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 of the regulation deals with
separation for various types of misconduct, which includes drug abuse, and
provides that individuals identified as drug abusers may be separated prior
to their normal expiration of term of service.  The issuance of a discharge
under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate;
however, a GD or HD may be authorized.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that due to his young age, he did not
realize the impact his misconduct would have on his Federal Government
employment opportunities was carefully considered.  However, this factor is
not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge at this
late date.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s separation processing
was
accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All
requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant
were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  By violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, the
applicant compromised the special trust and confidence placed in him as a
Soldier and knowingly risked his military career.  This misconduct clearly
diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable
discharge.

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 the aforementioned requirement.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 6 June 1986.  Therefore, the time for
him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 5
June 1989.  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

___MHM_  ___JTM _  ___JBG_  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                 |AR20040010235                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005-08-16                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       | DD, UNCHAR)                            |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1986/06/06                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200 . . . . .                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Chapter 14                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |144                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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