RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        1 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040010950


      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. Deyon D. Battle               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Stanley Kelley                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Barbara J. Ellis              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |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 an
honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he has been clean and off drugs since 1982
and that he has sought treatment for his behavior problems with medication.
 He states that he is currently in counseling and that he believes that
things are getting better.  He states that his perception of life is
changing and that he deeply regrets the behavior that he displayed while he
was in the Army.  He states that having his discharge upgraded to honorable
will affirm his new outlook on life and release him of the shame of letting
his fellow soldiers and his country down.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or
injustice, which occurred on 25 June 1982.  The application submitted in
this case is dated 3 December 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.  On 3 February 1978, he enlisted in the Army in Portland, Oregon, for 3
years, in the pay grade of E-1.  He went on to successfully complete his
training as an infantryman.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 3
August 1978.

4.  On 26 February 1979, the applicant's commanding officer directed that
he be enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Control Program
(ADAPCP).  The ADAPCP Military Client Intake and Follow-up Records that are
contained in his Army medical records show that he was enrolled as a non-
resident and that he received individual and group counseling.

5.  The applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 August 1979 and
he successfully completed the ADAPCP on 20 February 1980.

6.  After completing 2 years, 6 months and 17 days of total active service,
he reenlisted in the Army on 20 August 1980, for 3 years.  He was promoted
to the pay grade of E-4 on 3 March 1981.

7.  On 4 March 1982, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the
applicant for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment
consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3 and a forfeiture of pay in
the amount of $191.00.

8.  The Individual Monthly Coaching records that are contained in this
official record shows that he was counseled eight times between 16 April
1981 and 18 March 1982, for failure to prepare himself in all aspects; lack
of enthusiasm; lack of self pride; lack of self esteem; poor appearance;
poor working ability; and poor attitude.

9.  On 28 April 1982, the commander notified the applicant that he was
recommending that he be barred from reenlistment.  The commander cited
unsatisfactory conduct and poor efficiency as a basis for the bar to
reenlistment.  At the time that he was furnished a copy of the
recommendation, the applicant indicated that he had no desire to submit a
statement in his own behalf.

10.  On 11 May 1982, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being absent
from his place of duty from 3 May until 4 May 1982 and for failure to go to
his appointed place of duty on 11 May 1982.  His punishment consisted a
reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay in the amount of
$148.00 per month for 2 months and 14 days of restriction and extra duty.

11.  The recommendation for the applicant's bar to reenlistment was
approved on 12 May 1982.

12.  On 8 June 1982, he was notified that he was being recommended for
discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, due
to unsuitability.  On 9 June 1982, the applicant acknowledged receipt of
the notification and he waived his right to submit a statement in his own
behalf.




13.  The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 18 May 1982, and
the attending physician determined that his behavior was normal; he was
fully alert and oriented; his mood was unremarkable; his thought process
was clear; his thought content was normal; and his memory was good.  The
physician opined that he was mentally responsible; that he met the
retention requirements of Army Regulation 40-501; and that he had the
mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.

14.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on
14 June 1982.  Accordingly, on 25 June 1982, the applicant was discharged
under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 13 due to
unsuitability, based on apathy, defective attitude or inability to expend
efforts constructively.  He had completed 4 years, 4 months and 23 days of
total active service and he was issued a general discharge.

15.  A review of the available records fails to show that the applicant
ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his
discharge with that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, then in effect, provided the
policy and outlined the procedures for separating individuals for
unsuitability, and provided, in pertinent part, that commanders would
separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander’s judgment, the
member would not develop sufficiently to participate in further training
and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant's contentions have been noted.  However, his records fail
to show that drugs or alcohol was the cause of his being discharged from
the Army prematurely.  He successfully completed ADAPCP while he was in the
Army and during the discharge process, neither he nor his superiors
suggested that his lack of enthusiasm, lack of self-pride, lack of self-
esteem, poor appearance, poor working ability and poor attitude had
anything to do with alcohol or drugs.  He had NJP imposed against him twice
and he was counseled eight times.  It appears that he was provided every
opportunity to become a satisfactory soldier and he failed to do so.  It
also appears that the general discharge that he received appropriately
reflects his overall record of service.

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 this requirement.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 25 June 1982; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 24 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

__sk____  __bje___  __rtd___  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.

                                        Stanley Kelley
                                  ______________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040010950                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050901                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19820625                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |CHAPTER 13                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  547  |144.4000/UNSUITABILITY                  |
|2.  560                 |144.4300/APATHY                         |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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