RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        25 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040010413


      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. John J. Wendland, Jr.         |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Margaret K. Patterson         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald E. Blakely             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Linda M. Barker               |     |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 under other than honorable
conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable or general discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that alcohol played an important part
in his life during his military service and he was unaware that he was not
in control of his life.  The applicant continues that he is now aware that
he was an alcoholic.

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 which
occurred on 10 December 1984, the date of his discharge.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 15 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.  The applicant's records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army for
three years on 21 January 1974.  He completed basic combat training and
advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational
specialty (MOS) 16D (Hawk Missile Crewman).  The applicant's records show
he was separated from active duty under honorable conditions after serving
3 years, 0 months, and
0 days, and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group, effective
21 January 1977.

4.  The applicant's records show that he reentered the Regular Army when he
enlisted for a period of four years on 25 October 1977.  He subsequently
extended his enlistment to a period of 4 years and 4 months and then
reenlisted for a period of six years on 21 December 1981.  He was promoted
to the rank of staff sergeant/pay grade E-6 on 3 November 1983.  On 2
December 1983, the applicant was assigned to D Battery, 6th Battalion, 52nd
Air Defense Artillery in Germany, where he served in MOS 16D as a Senior
Launcher Crew Chief.
5.  On 6 July 1984, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for his involvement in domestic violence against his wife.  His
punishment consisted of reduction to the rank of sergeant/pay grade E-5.

6.  The applicant's records show that he requested a discharge for the good
of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of
chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative
Separations).

7.  The applicant's records contains documentation which shows that his
chain of command recommended approval of the applicant's separation from
the U.S. Army and further recommended that the applicant be issued a
discharge under other than honorable conditions.  This document also shows
the separation action was reviewed and found legally sufficient by the
Staff Judge Advocate, who also recommended that the charges against the
applicant, and their specifications, be dismissed.

8.  On 29 November 1984, the commander of the 3rd Infantry Division
[Germany] approved the applicant’s request for discharge under the
provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 and directed that the
applicant be reduced to the rank of private/pay grade E-1 and issued a
discharge under other than honorable conditions.

9.  The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty) shows that he was discharged under other than honorable
conditions on
10 December 1984, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 10 of Army
Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant
served 7 years and 10 days of active service during this period.  In
addition, the Separation Program Designator (SPD) Code of KFS and
Reenlistment (RE) Codes of
3, 3B, and 3C were entered on his discharge document.

10.  On 19 November 1990, the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve.
At that time, the applicant completed DD Form 1966/2
(Enlistment/Reenlistment Document).  On this document, in Item 25b
(Previous Military Service or Employment with the U.S. Government - Have
you ever been rejected for enlistment, reenlistment, or induction by any
branch of the Armed Forces of the United States?), the applicant indicated
with his initials his response as, "No".

11.  On 29 November 1990, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a
period of four years.  He completed basic combat training and advanced
individual training and was awarded MOS 13N (Lance Crewman).

12.  A DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 13 May 1991, shows the
applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on 10 May 1991.

13.  A DA Form 4187, dated 28 May 1991, shows the applicant was apprehended
and confined by civilian authorities on 24 May 1991.

14.  A DA Form 4187, dated 15 July 1991, shows the applicant was
transferred from civilian confinement to military control on 13 July 1991.

15.  Evidence of records shows that on 24 July 1991, the applicant was
discharged in accordance with the provisions of chapter 7 of Army
Regulation 635-200 for fraudulent entry.  The applicant served 5 months and
24 days of active service during this period.  This document also shows the
applicant's character of service as uncharacterized and a Reentry Code of
RE-3 was entered on his discharge document.

16.  There is no evidence in the applicant's military service records which
shows incidents involving alcohol, or that the applicant sought or received
counseling for alcohol-related matters.

17.  There is no evidence showing that the applicant applied to the Army
Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his 10 December 1984 discharge
within its 15-year statute of limitations.

18.  The applicant provided no documentary evidence in support of his
application to upgrade his other than honorable conditions discharge.

19.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides,
in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses
for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may,
submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial
by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges
have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.
Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under
other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.





20.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-3, provides that a general
discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When
authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is
satisfactory, but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable
discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued
only when the reason for the Soldier's separation specifically allows such
characterization.

21.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable
discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits
provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the
quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis
added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization
would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be
resolved in favor of the individual.

22.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Personnel Separations - SPD Codes) provides
the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating
Soldiers from active duty, and the Reentry (RE) Codes to be entered on the
DD Form 214.  It states, in pertinent part, that the SPD code of KFS is the
appropriate code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of
chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of discharge for the good
of the service in lieu of court-martial.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference
Table included in the regulation establishes RE-3, 3B, and 3C as the proper
RE Codes to assign members separated with this SPD Code.  RE Codes 3, 3B,
and 3C apply to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the
disqualification is waivable.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends, in effect, that his discharge under conditions
other than honorable should be upgraded because alcohol played an important
part in his life during his military service and he was unaware that he was
not in control of his life.  The applicant continues that he is now aware
that he was an alcoholic.

2.  There is no evidence of records, and the applicant provides no
documentary evidence, that indicates that he was an alcoholic and unable to
successfully complete military service.



3.  A complete copy of the applicant’s discharge processing documentation
is not available in his service personnel records.  However, his records
contain correspondence related to the applicant's request for discharge
which documents the legal review from the Staff Judge Advocate, approval
from the approving authority, and a DD Form 214 which shows he was
separated under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of
Chapter 10 of Army Regulation
635-200.

4.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the applicant's request for
separation under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200
for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial was voluntary,
administratively correct, and in compliance with applicable regulations.

5.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, it is determined that all
requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the
applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

6.  The applicant’s record of service, which shows his involvement in
domestic violence against his wife, did not meet the standards of
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Thus, the
applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge.  Furthermore, this
service was not satisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant is also not
entitled to a general discharge.

7.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 10 December 1984; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
9 December 1987.  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

___MKP_  __REB__  ___LMB__  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.




                                  ____Margaret K. Patterson____
                                            CHAIRPERSON






                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040010413                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050825                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19841210                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, Chapter 10                  |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |For the Good of the Service - In Lieu of|
|                        |CM                                      |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0134.0000                           |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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