RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           2 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040010247


      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. Robert L. Duecaster           |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette R. McCants           |     |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 undesirable discharge (UD)
be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was not offered drug
rehabilitation after admitting his addiction to his unit commander.  He
states that after he voluntarily went to his commander, he was denied
rehabilitation for his drug problem and the reason for this denial was
never explained.

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 occurred on 19 September 1973.  The application submitted in this case
is dated 18 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 that he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 18 September 1972.  He was trained in, awarded, and
served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 52B (Power Generator
Equipment Operator).

4.  The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) confirms, in
Item 33 (Appointments & Reductions), that he was advanced to private/E-2
(PV2) on 18 January 1973, and that this was the highest rank he attained
while serving on active duty.  It also shows that he was reduced to
private/E-1 (PV1) on 23 May 1973, and that this was the rank he held on the
date of his discharge.  His record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

5.  The applicant’s disciplinary history includes his acceptance of
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 offense(s) indicated:  14 May 1973, for failing to go to
his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed; 23 May 1973, for
failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed; and 28
June 1973, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the time
prescribed and disobeying a lawful order.

6.  On 17 August 1973, a bar to reenlistment was imposed on the applicant.
The reasons cited for the action were the applicant’s disciplinary record,
and his poor performance of duty.  His record of NJP, and his counseling
record, which included twelve formal counseling sessions with members of
his chain of command in the two-month period between 2 May and 13 July 1973
were cited as other factors contributing to the bar to reenlistment action.


7.  On 10 August 1973, the applicant underwent a separation physical
examination.  The examining physician found him normal in all clinical
areas of evaluation.  The applicant was given a 111211 Physical Profile and
assigned a Physical Category of B, indicating good health with minor issues
with his ears.  There is no indication in this document, or in any other
medical treatment records on file, that indicate he suffered from drug
addiction, or from a medically disqualifying condition at the time of his
separation.  The examining physician found the applicant medically
qualified for retention/separation.

8.  The applicant’s record is void of a separation packet containing the
specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing.  The
record does contain a separation document (DD Form 214) that confirms the
applicant was separated on 19 September 1973.  This document confirms the
applicant was separated under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation
635-200, by reason of unfitness (frequent involvement in incidents of a
discreditable nature with civil and/or military authorities), and that he
received an UD.

9.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 also shows that at the time of his
discharge,
he had completed 11 months and 29 days of creditable active military
service, and had accrued 3 days of time lost.  It also shows that during
his active duty tenure, he earned the National Defense Service Medal.  He
authenticated this document with his signature in Item 32 (Signature of
Person Being Transferred or Discharged).

10.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army
Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-
year statute of limitations.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, in effect at the time,
provided for the separation of members for unfitness, for frequent
involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and/or
military authorities.  An UD was normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that he was denied drug rehabilitation by
his unit commander was carefully considered.  However, there is
insufficient evidence to support this claim, or that shows he suffered from
any medical condition that impaired his ability to serve at the time of his
discharge.

2.  The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances
surrounding his separation processing.  However, it does contain a properly
constituted DD Form 214 that identifies the reason and characterization of
the applicant’s discharge.  The applicant authenticated this document with
his signature on the date of his separation.  Therefore, Government
regularity in the discharge process is presumed.

3.  In the absence of any evidence of record or independent evidence to the
contrary, it is concluded that all requirements of law and regulation were
met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the
separation process. Further, the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects
his overall record of short and undistinguished service.

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 19 September 1973.  Therefore, the
time
for him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired
on
18 September 1976.  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    ___RLD _  __JRM  _  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                 |AR20040010247                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/08/02                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1973/09/19                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 C13                          |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unfitness                               |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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