RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           21 July 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040011409


      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. Wanda L. Waller               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John Infante                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert Osborn                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Brenda Koch                   |     |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 discharge under other than honorable
conditions be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states that at the time of his discharge he was
hopelessly addicted to drugs which motivated the theft that led to his
discharge.  He contends that he needed help then and has ever since.  He
goes on to state that he has finally changed his life and is seeking
professional and God centered recovery.

3.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 17 February 1988.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
9 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 limitation 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 on 8 August 1986 for a period of 4 years.  He
successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training in
military occupational specialty 94B (food service specialist).

4.  On 22 May 1987, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for using and possessing marijuana/hashish.  His punishment
consisted of a reduction to E-1, a forfeiture of pay, restriction, and
extra duty.

5.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are
not contained in the available records.  However, 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 17 February 1988
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good
of the service in lieu of court-martial.  He had served 1 year, 6 months,
and 10 days of creditable active service.

6.  There is no evidence in the applicant’s service personnel records which
shows that he was diagnosed with drug dependency prior to his discharge.

7.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of
limitations.

8.  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.

9.  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.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, 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.

11.  Army Regulation 600-85 prescribes policies and procedures needed to
implement and operate the Army Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and
Control Program (ADAPC).  In pertinent part, it states that identification
of a drug or alcohol abuser was accomplished through a variety of methods,
including voluntary (self) identification.  Voluntary (self) identification
was the most desirable method of discovering alcohol or other drug abuse.
The individual whose performance, social conduct, interpersonal relations,
or health became impaired because of the abuse of alcohol or other drugs
had the personal obligation to seek treatment and rehabilitation.



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the applicant contends that he was hopelessly addicted to
drugs which motivated the theft that led to his discharge, there is no
evidence of record which shows he was diagnosed with drug dependency prior
to his voluntary request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.
It is noted that nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant
for marijuana/hashish use and possession in May 1987.  The applicant could
have self-referred himself to ADAPCP for drug treatment and rehabilitation.
 It appears he did not do so.

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that
the applicant’s separation was administratively correct and in conformance
with applicable regulations.  Without having the discharge packet to
consider, it is presumed his characterization of service was commensurate
with his overall record of service.  As a result, there is no basis for
granting the applicant's request.

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 17 February 1988; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 16
February 1991.  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

JI_____  RO______  BK______  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.



            __John Infante________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040011409                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050721                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19880217                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 Chapter 10                   |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |For the good of the service             |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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