RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           30 September 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004101333


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John N. Slone                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Melvin H. Meyer               |     |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 general, under honorable
conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he completed his full three years
of service and was separated at the expiration of his term of service
(ETS).  As a result, his final discharge should be honorable.

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 or injustice
that occurred on 20 March 1978.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
9 December 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’s record shows he served on active duty in the Regular
Army from 31 May 1972 through 21 May 1975.  The separation document (DD
Form 214) he was issued upon his release from active duty (REFRAD) confirms
he was honorably separated after completing 2 years, 11 months and 21 days
of active military service.  It further shows that upon his REFRAD, he was
transferred to the United States Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group to
complete his military service obligation (MSO).

4.  On 1 March 1977, the applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard
(ARNG) for 1 year and entered in the rank of private first class (PFC).
5.  On 12 August 1977, the applicant was reduced from PFC to private/E-2
(PV2) due to misconduct (continued and willful absence without leave (AWOL)
from annual training in 1977 (AT-77).

6.  On 19 April 1978, the applicant’s unit commander recommended the
applicant be discharged by reason of ETS on 20 March 1978.  The commander
recommended the applicant receive a GD based on his being AWOL from AT-77
and from training drills.

7.  On 27 April 1978, Iowa ARNG Orders Number 82-4, issued by The State
Adjutant General, directed the applicant’s discharge from the ARNG and
transfer to the USAR Control Group on 20 March 1978.  The type of discharge
authorized was a GD (NGB Form 56a).

8.  The applicant’s record is void of any indication of the type of
discharge he finally received from the USAR upon his completing his MSO.

9.  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.

10.  National Guard Regulation 600-200 establishes policies and procedures
for the management of ARNG enlisted soldiers.  Paragraph 8-7 contains
guidance on characterization of service.  It states, in pertinent part,
that normally a GD will not be issued to soldiers discharged by reason of
ETS unless specifically authorized by State Code.

11.  Army Regulation 135-178 Paragraph 2-9 contains guidance on
characterization of service.  It states, in pertinent part, that a
characterization of under honorable conditions will not be issued to
soldiers upon separation for ETS.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was honorably REFRAD on
21 May 1975.  It also shows that upon his discharge from the Iowa ARNG on
20 March 1978, at the completion of his 1 year enlistment, he received a
GD.

2.  The applicant’s GD from the ARNG was authorized in orders published by
The State Adjutant General based on the recommendation of his commander.
The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s AWOL related
misconduct.

3.  Although a GD is not normally issued to members separated at ETS, given
the presence of authorizing orders from The State Adjutant General and
absent evidence to the contrary, it presumed this discharge was properly
issued under State Code as required by the governing regulation.  Further,
this discharge accurately reflects the overall character of the applicant’s
ARNG service.

4.  The record contains no documentary evidence related to the applicant’s
final discharge from the USAR at the completion of his MSO.  Absent a
specific discharge, it is presumed his final discharge was accomplished in
accordance with the applicable law and regulation.  Therefore, no action is
taken in this regard.  If the applicant has in his possession a final
discharge from the USAR that he believes does not accurately reflect the
overall character of his military service, he may reapply to the Board on
that specific issue.

5.  In view of the facts of this case, it appears the applicant’s active
duty service was accurately characterized as honorable and his ARNG service
was accurately characterized as under honorable conditions.  Therefore,
there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the relief
requested by the applicant.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 20 March 1978, the date of his
discharge from the ARNG.  Therefore, the time for him to file a request for
correction of any error or injustice expired on 19 March 1981.  However, he
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 PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_JNS ___  __LE____  __MHM__  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 N. SLONE______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004101333                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2004/09/DD                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1978/03/20                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |NGR 600-200                             |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |ETS                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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