RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           25 October 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050003338


      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. James Anderholm               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jose Martinez                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne Douglas               |     |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 be upgraded to
honorable.

2.  The applicant states that he failed the urinalysis; however, he has
since recovered.  He states his general discharge hinders his employment
opportunities.

3.  The applicant provides a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs
(DVA), dated 3 June 2003.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 6 August 1987.  The application submitted in this case is dated
21 January 2005.

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 27 March 1984 for a period of 3 years.  He
successfully completed basic training and One Station Unit Training in
military occupational specialty 55B (ammunition specialist).

4.  On 2 December 1985, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for using marijuana.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to
E-2 (suspended), a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

5.  The applicant was enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and
Control Program (ADAPCP) from 18 December 1985 to 6 July 1986.

6.  On 13 February 1987, the applicant was enrolled in Track II of the
ADAPCP as a result of a positive urinalysis for marijuana.  On 23 March
1987, he tested positive for marijuana on an urinalysis.

7.  On 26 March 1987, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for using marijuana in the hashish form.  His punishment
consisted of a reduction to E-2 and extra duty.
8.  On 21 April 1987, the Clinical Director of the ADAPCP determined that
the applicant’s progress and potential for rehabilitation was poor during
his second enrollment in the ADAPCP.

9.  On 9 June 1987, the applicant was notified of his pending separation
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse
rehabilitation failure.  His unit commander cited that the applicant had
tested positive for marijuana on two occasions and failed to show any
significant progress during his enrollment in the ADAPCP.

10.  On 12 June 1987, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the letter of
notification of separation, consulted with counsel, and elected not to
submit a statement on his own behalf.

11.  The applicant’s unit commander submitted a recommendation to discharge
the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-
200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure.  He declared the
applicant an ADAPCP rehabilitative failure.

12.  On 18 June 1987, the separation authority approved the recommendation
for discharge and directed that the applicant be furnished a general
discharge.

13.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with a general discharge on
6 August 1987 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9,
for drug abuse rehabilitation failure.  He had served 3 years, 4 months,
and 10 days of creditable active service.

14.  In support of his claim, the applicant provided a DVA letter, dated 3
June 2003, which shows he completed Phase One (21 day intensive outpatient
substance abuse treatment program) of their program on 1 February 2005.

15.  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.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 9 contains the authority and
outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or
other drug abuse.  A member who has been referred to the ADAPCP for
alcohol/drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to
participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if
there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation
efforts are no longer practical.  At the time of the applicant's separation
an honorable or general discharge was authorized.
17.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  A discharge is not upgraded for the sole purpose of obtaining
employment opportunities.

2.  The applicant's record of service included two nonjudicial punishments
for drug abuse.  As a result, his quality of service 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 an honorable discharge.

3.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  He had an opportunity to
submit a statement in which he could have voiced his concerns and he failed
to do so.

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

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 6 August 1987; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 5
August 1990.  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

JA_____  JM______  LD______  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.




            ___James Anderholm____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050003338                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051025                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19870806                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, Chapter 9                   |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Drug abuse rehabilitation failure       |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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