RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           15 June 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2004100521


      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. Fred Eichorn                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Larry Bergquist               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Eloise Prendergast            |     |Member               |

      The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

      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 he volunteered for service in 1976, that
while in the service he got "messed up" on drinking and drugs at an early
age, that he did not know how to handle it, so he went absent without leave
(AWOL).

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 2 October 1979.  The application submitted in this case is
undated but was received in this office on 6 November 2003.

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 was born on 11 January 1957.  He enlisted on 3 December
1976 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed basic training and
advanced individual training in military occupational specialty 17K (ground
surveillance radar crewman).

4.  On 30 March 1978, the applicant was referred to the Mental Health
Clinic by his unit for an evaluation (he claimed he was having a difficult
time adjusting to military life).

5.  On 4 May 1978, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant
for being AWOL from 4 April 1978 to 25 April 1978.  His punishment
consisted of a reduction to E-2, a forfeiture of pay, and extra duty.

6.  On 19 June 1978, the applicant was enrolled (self-referral) in the
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) for
alcoholism - episodic excessive drinking.  He was placed in a non-resident
rehabilitation program.  On 29 August 1978 and on 22 October 1978, his
counselor rated his progress as "good."

7.  The applicant went AWOL on 3 December 1978 and returned to military
control on 15 August 1979.  On 20 August 1979, charges were preferred
against the applicant for the AWOL period.

8.  On 22 August 1979, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and
requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He indicated in his request that
he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions
and furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate; that he
might be deprived of many or all Army benefits; that he might be ineligible
for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration; and
that he might be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under
both Federal and State law.  He also acknowledged that he might expect to
encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an Under Other
Than Honorable Discharge.  In addition, he elected to submit a statement on
his behalf.  He stated that he went AWOL because he could not take the
pressure.  He was placed on excess leave on 22 August 1979.

9.  On 7 September 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under
other than honorable conditions.

10.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable
conditions on 2 October 1979 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-
200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served 2 years and 27
days of total active service with 276 days of lost time due to AWOL.

11.  There is no evidence in the applicant's service personnel records
which shows the applicant was diagnosed with drug abuse or dependency.

12.  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.

13.  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.

14.  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.

15.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was almost 20 years old when he enlisted and he
successfully completed basic combat training.  Age is not a sufficiently
mitigating factor.

2.  The evidence of record does not support the applicant's contention that
he was unable to handle his alcohol problem.  Medical evidence of record
shows the applicant voluntarily enrolled himself in the ADAPCP for alcohol
dependency, that he participated in a rehabilitation program for at least
120 days, and that his counselor rated his progress in the program as
"good."

3.  There is no evidence of record, and the applicant has provided no
evidence, which shows that he was diagnosed with drug abuse or dependency.


4.  The applicant’s record of service included one nonjudicial punishment
and 276 days of lost time.  As a result, his record of service was not
satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and
performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record
of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant a general or honorable
discharge.

5.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial,
was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable
regulations.

6.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

7.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 2 October 1979; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 1
October 1982.  However,


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 RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

FE_____  LB______  EP______  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.




            __Fred Eichorn________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004100521                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040615                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19791002                                |
|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.                      |                                        |