RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        30 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040011092


      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. Prevolia Harper               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Paul M. Smith                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Yolanda Maldonado             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Leonard G. 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, under honorable conditions
discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant provides no statement or documentary evidence in support
of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 9 September 1983.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 22 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 January 1980 for a
period of 4 years.  He completed basic and advanced individual training and
was awarded the military occupational specialty 63H10 (Automotive
Repairer).  The highest grade he held while on active duty was private
first class/pay grade E-3.

4.  The applicant’s military personnel records do not contain a complete
separation packet containing all the facts and circumstances surrounding
his separation processing.

5.  On 2 August 1982, the applicant was counseled for missing formation.
He received additional counseling statements on 18 August 1982 and 10 March
1982 for missing formation.

6.  In a 15 April 1983 memorandum from the Alcohol and Drug Control Officer
to the applicant’s commander, the officer informed the commander that the
applicant was previously enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention
and Control Program (ADAPCP) from April to August 1982.  The officer also
concluded that further rehabilitative efforts were not practical and that
the
applicant’s effective service was substantially reduced.  The officer
recommended the applicant be separated from the service under provisions of
chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200.

7.  On 16 April 1983, the officer in charge of Company B, 123rd Maintenance
Battalion, provided a performance summary which stated that the applicant
had been a continual problem and invariably missed formations, left the
work area without asking superiors, and had shown up to work intoxicated,
disorderly and disrespectful to his superiors.

8.  On 26 April 1983, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failure to go to his
appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of reduction to private
first class, forfeiture of $184 per month for one month, and 14 days of
extra duty.

9.  On 3 August 1983, the applicant's commander informed him that he was
initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 9.  The reasons cited for his proposed action were the
applicant's continuous use of alcoholic beverages which resulted in missed
formations, his unsuccessful participation in the ADAPCP and his enrollment
in the Track III (residential/ in-patient treatment) program pending
hospitalization.  The commander also noted the applicant had arrived to
work intoxicated on more than one occasion and his constant disrespect to
noncommissioned officers.

10.  On or about 3 August 1983, the applicant received the notification of
the separation action.  He consulted with counsel and he elected not to
submit statements in his behalf.

11.  On 9 September 1983, the applicant was discharged with a general under
honorable conditions characterization of service, under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for alcohol rehabilitation failure.  He
completed 3 years, 7 months, and 19 days of creditable military service.

12.  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.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 9 provides for the discharge of
members based on alcohol or other drug abuse such as the illegal, wrongful
or improper use of any controlled substance, alcohol or other drug when the
Soldier is enrolled in the
ADAPCP and the commander, in consultation with the rehabilitation team,
determined that further rehabilitation efforts are not practical, rendering
the Soldier a rehabilitative failure.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s record does not contain all the facts and circumstances
concerning events that led to a discharge from the Army.  However, the
record does contain endorsements confirming the applicant’s general
discharge for alcohol rehabilitation failure and his chain of command’s
efforts to assist him.  Absent evidence to the contrary, it is concluded
that all requirements of law and regulation were met and that the rights of
the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

2.  The applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of
service.  The applicant’s misconduct diminished the quality of his service
below that meriting an honorable discharge.  His administrative separation
was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no
indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.


3.  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.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error
under consideration on 9 September 1983.  Therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 8 September 1986.  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

__PMS__  ___YM __  __LGH __  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 M. Smith_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040011092                           |
|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          |(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)          |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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