RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        30 AUGUST 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040010321


      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. Gale J. Thomas                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Paul Smith                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Yolanda Maldonado             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Leonard 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 that his general discharge be upgraded to fully
honorable.

2.  The applicant states he believes the discharge should be upgraded
because of the hardship he was experiencing at the time.  He states that he
enlisted in the Ohio Army National Guard, went through training and then
came home to serve weekends.  He states he was only 19 or 20 at the time
and that his parents were going through a divorce.  He states he was unable
to find employment and lacked the funds to obtain a car in order to drive
the 30 miles for guard meetings.

3.  The applicant states he initially obtained rides from another unit
member, but he ended up moving away and he had no means of getting to his
meetings.  He states he tried to explain his mental and financial situation
to his unit commander but it did not seem to matter.  He states he was
reduced in grade and then moved to the IRR (Individual Ready Reserve) to
complete his enlistment.

4.  The applicant states he believes his discharge was personal because he
was dating the unit commander's daughter at the time.  He believes he
deserves an honorable discharge because he served honorably during all of
the training and on the 2 week trips with the rest of his unit.  He
maintains his situation would have been handled differently if not for his
involvement with the unit commander's daughter.

5.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 1 July 1982.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
14 November 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.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant was 19 years old
when he enlisted in the Ohio National Guard for a period of 6 years on 21
May 1980.  He was a high school graduate with aptitude scores all above
110, including his GT (General Technical) Score of 120.  His enlistment
contract notes that he received a Federal Enlistment Bonus but the amount
was not recorded in records available to the Board.

4.  The applicant entered active duty on 17 July 1980 for the purpose of
undergoing training.  He successfully completed basic and advanced
individual training and was awarded a military specialty of 68G (Aircraft
Structural Repairer).  He was released from active duty and returned to the
Ohio Army National Guard on 22 January 1981 with an honorable
characterization of service.

5.  In spite of missing drill in April 1981, the applicant was promoted to
pay grade E-3 in June 1981.  However, by September 1981 he was notified by
his unit commander that action would be taken to reduce the applicant to
pay grade E-2 because of accumulation of unexcused absences.  When the
applicant failed to attend drill in October 1981 action was initiated to
reduce the applicant one pay grade.  He was reduced as a result of
misconduct on 10 November 1981.  Additionally, as a result of his unexcused
absences action was also taken to suspend annual payments of his enlistment
bonus.

6.  By December 1981 the applicant was notified that he had accumulated 13
unexcused absences within a 1 year period and as such, his unit commander
was declaring him an unsatisfactory participant and that action would be
initiated to discharge him from the Army National Guard.

7.  In a 21 December 1981 memorandum for record the applicant's unit
commander noted the applicant provided no justifiable reason to
substantiate his AWOL (absent without leave) status during scheduled
training.  The memorandum noted that the applicant and his mother had been
contacted concerning his status however he continued to be AWOL from
scheduled training.  The commander noted the applicant admitted he had
transportation problems since wrecking his car, but had insisted he could
work out that problem and attend drill, but then failed to do so.

8.  Although documents associated with the applicant's separation process
were not in records available to the Board his National Guard Bureau Form
22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) indicates the applicant was
discharged from the Ohio Army National Guard on 1 July 1982 under honorable
conditions and transferred to the United States Army Reserve.  The basis
for his discharge was recorded as unsatisfactory participation.

9.  In May 1986, at the conclusion of his 6 year statutory service
obligation, the applicant was discharged from the United States Army
Reserve.  His separation order indicates he was given a general discharge.

10.  Army Regulation 135-178 provides for the separation of members of the
Army National Guard and Army Reserve.  It states that a Soldier is subject
to discharge for unsatisfactory participation when it is determined that
the Soldier is unqualified for further service because of unsatisfactory
participation/non-attendance at scheduled unit training assemblies.  The
service of a member separated under this provision will be characterized as
honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by his or her military
record, unless a Soldier is in an entry level status.

11.  There is no indication the applicant sought to upgrade the character
of his discharge via the Army Discharge Review Board.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed the
applicant's discharge from the Ohio Army National Guard and the United
States Army Reserve were completed in accordance with applicable laws and
regulations.  The applicant has provided no evidence the actions were not
appropriately completed.

2.  The evidence available to the Board indicates the applicant's unit
commander was aware the applicant had transportation problems, which he
noted resulted from the applicant wrecking his vehicle and not because he
was unable to find employment or because of his family's situation.
Rather, the unit commander noted the applicant had indicated that he would
be able to work out that problem and attend drill, which he failed to do.
There is no indication in available records, or provided by the applicant,
that his separation was the result of a personal relationship with the unit
commander's daughter.

3.  The evidence available to the Board indicates the applicant failed to
attend scheduled drills, was advised that failure to attend such drills
would result in his reduction and subsequent discharge.  In spite of the
warning, the applicant continued to miss scheduled drills and as such, was
reduced and discharged under honorable conditions.  The characterization of
his service, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, was appropriate.
4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that requirement.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 1 July 1982; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
30 June 1985.  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

___PS __  ___YM __  ___LH  __  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.




                                  _______Paul Smith_________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040010321                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050830                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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