RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        4 October 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050000545


      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. Joyce A. Wright               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Mark D. Manning               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Larry C. Bergquist            |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Carmen Duncan                 |     |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 (GD), under honorable
conditions be changed to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he went to his first sergeant and requested a
release from the National Guard.  At that time, his mother was ill and he
was driving back and forth to Chicago.  Additionally, his job as a security
guard was being threatened because he could not work the required weekend
shift and needed to keep his full time job.

3.  The applicant provides no documentation in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 1 January 1987, the date of his discharge.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 24 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.  The applicant's military records show he entered active duty (AD) on
16 September 1981, as a material storage and handling specialist (76V).  He
was promoted to specialist (SPC/E-4) on 1 February 1984.  He continued to
serve until he was released from AD on 14 September 1984.  He was
transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement),
St Louis, Missouri.

4.  On 12 March 1985, orders were published releasing the applicant from
the USAR, effective 22 February 1985, so that he could reenlist in the
Tennessee Army National Guard (TNARNG).  He enlisted in the TNARNG on
23 February 1985, for a period of 2 years and 27 weeks, in the pay grade of
E-4.




5.  The applicant’s records contain a Letter of Instructions-Unexcused
Absence, dated 2 December 1985, which shows that the applicant was absent
on several occasions from scheduled unit training assemblies (UTAs) and had
acquired four unexcused absences in a one-year period.  The letter also
states that the applicant was required to attend all scheduled UTAs and
annual training periods under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-91.

6.  On 12 December 1985, orders were published reducing the applicant from
SP4/E-4 to private first class (PFC/E-3) with an effective date of
1 January 1986, for misconduct (with prejudice).

7.  The applicant’s records contain another Letter of Instructions-
Unexcused Absence, dated 13 January 1986, which shows that the applicant
was absent on several occasions from scheduled UTAs and had acquired eight
unexcused absences within the past 1-year period.

8.  On 22 January 1986, orders were published reducing the applicant from
PFC/E-3 to private E-2 (PV2/E-2) with an effective date of 22 January 1986.

9.  The applicant’s records contain a third and final Letter of
Instructions-Unexcused Absence, dated 3 February 1986, which shows that the
applicant was absent on several occasions from scheduled UTAs and had
acquired twelve unexcused absences within the past 1-year period.

10.  The applicant’s commander submitted a request to separate the
applicant from the TNARNG and as a Reserve of the Army under the provisions
of Army Regulation 135-178, chapter 6, for unsatisfactory performance.  He
based his reasons on the applicant's unsatisfactory participation as a
member of the Guard. The notice was sent to the applicant for his
acknowledgement by certified mail.

11.  On 3 February 1986, the applicant was notified by letter and on
25 February 1986, a voice mail message was left on the applicant's
telephone voice mail.  He was informed by his commander that he was being
processed for discharge from the TNARNG for his unsatisfactory
participation as a member of the Guard.

12.  On 3 October 1986, the commander submitted a request through channels
to the State Adjutant General requesting that the applicant be discharged
under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army National Guard
Regulation 600-200, paragraph 7-10r, for unsatisfactory participation of
members.  He based his reasons on the applicant's excessive absences
without leave (AWOL).



13.  The applicant's record is void of evidence to support his allegations
and/or contentions that he went to his first sergeant and requested a
release from the National Guard because of his mother's illness and because
his full time job civilian job was being threatened.

14.  On 1 January 1987, the applicant was discharged, under honorable
conditions, from the TNARNG and as a Reserve of the Army, under the
provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-200, paragraph 7-10r, for
unsatisfactory participation of members and under the provisions of Army
Regulation 135-178, for unsatisfactory performance, in the pay grade of E-
2.  He was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Individual Ready Reserve
[IRR]), St Louis, Missouri.

15.  On 9 January 1990, the applicant was honorably discharged from the IRR
in the pay grade of E-2.

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

17.  Army Regulation 135-91 (Policies and Procedures Governing Satisfactory
Participation) prescribes policies, procedures, and responsibilities
pertaining to satisfactory completion of the Ready Reserve service
obligation and enforcement procedures pertaining thereto for certain
personnel of the Reserve Components. Section III pertains to unexcused
absence.  Paragraph 4-9 pertains to conditions of unexcused absence.  It
states, in pertinent part, that enlisted members who are obligated by
statute or contract will be charged with unsatisfactory
participation when without proper authority they:  (1) accrue in any 1-year
period, a total of nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills;
(2) fail to obtain a unit of assignment during a leave of absence; and (3)
fail to attend or complete annual training (AT).  Statutorily or
contractually obligated enlisted members who are charged with
unsatisfactory participation may be transferred to
the IRR.

18.  Paragraph 4-11 of the same regulation pertains to unexcused absences
from unit training assemblies.  It states that a member is an
unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from
scheduled drills occur during a
1-year period.  Unless an absence is authorized, a Soldier failing to
attend a scheduled single or multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) will be
charged with an unexcused absence.




19.  Army Regulation 135-178 provides for the separation of enlisted
personnel of the USAR and the ARNG.  Chapter 6 of the regulation governs
the separation for unsatisfactory performance.  The regulation provides
that a Soldier may be separated under this chapter when it is determined
that he or she is unqualified for further military service by reason of
unsatisfactory performance.  Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory
performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable
conditions as warranted by his or her military records and may be
transferred to the IRR.

20.  National Guard Regulation 600-200 establishes standards, policies, and
procedures for the management of the ARNG Soldiers.  Chapter 7, paragraph
7-10r provides for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory
participation of members.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows that the applicant received three Letters of
Instructions – Unexcused Absences in a one-year period and had a total of
12 unexcused absences from training.  He was required to attend all
scheduled UTAs under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-91, which he did
not follow.  He was declared an unsatisfactory participant, was reduced to
the pay grade of E-2, and was discharged from the National Guard and
transferred to the USAR (IRR).

2.  The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation
   135-178 and NGR 600-200.  He was issued a GD, under honorable
conditions.

3.  The applicant alleged that he went to his first sergeant and requested
release from AD due to the illness of his mother.  He stated that he was
driving back and forth to Chicago.  His job as a security guard was being
threatened because he was unable to work the required shifts and he needed
to keep his full time job.  However, there is no evidence in the
applicant's records, and the applicant has provided none, to support his
allegation.

4.  In accordance with applicable regulation, employment conflicts are not
normally considered valid reasons for absence from training.  The applicant
failed to show that his employment conditions created a hardship for
attendance at UTAs.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting the
applicant’s request for an upgrade of his GD.

5.  There is no evidence in the applicant's records, and the applicant has
provided none, to show that he applied for an upgrade of his discharge to
the ADRB within its 15-year statute of limitations.
6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 1 January 1987; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 31 December 1989.  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

____MM_  ___CD___  ___LB__   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.




                                  __Mark D. Manning_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050000545                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051004                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19900109                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 135-178/ngr 600-200, chap 7. . . . . |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |



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