RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        19 October 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050004540


      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. Beverly A. Young              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Barbara Ellis                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Hubert Fry                    |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Robert Rogers                 |     |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 under other than honorable conditions
(UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states that he is entitled to a discharge upgrade so he
can improve his living conditions and beat a serious cocaine addiction.  He
states that he needs an upgrade in order to be admitted into a Department
of Veterans Affairs (DVA) sponsored substance abuse program and to be
eligible for VA related disability.

3.  The applicant provides a supplemental letter.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on  13 April 1983.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 15 March 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 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 enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 27 September
1976.  He was ordered to active duty for training (ADT) on 21 November 1976
and completed training as an operating room specialist.  He was released
from ADT on 6 August 1977 and was returned to his Reserve unit.

4.  By a letter dated 6 December 1980, the applicant was informed that he
was absent from the scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or multiple unit
training assembly (MUTA) on 22 November and 23 November 1980.

5.  By a letter dated 4 February 1981, the applicant was informed that he
was absent from the scheduled UTA or MUTA on 24 January and 25 January
1981.

6.  By a letter dated 20 April 1981, the applicant was informed that he was
absent from the scheduled UTA or MUTA on 11 April and 12 April 1981.

7.  By a letter dated 28 June 1981, the applicant's unit commander notified
him that he was an unsatisfactory participant because he did not submit a
request to be excused from MUTAs for the periods 22 to 23 November 1980, 24
to 25 January 1981 and 11 to 12 April 1981.  His commander declared him an
unsatisfactory participant and initiated action to separate him from the
USAR for misconduct under the provisions of section VII, chapter 7, Army
Regulation 135-178.  His commander recommended his case be considered by a
board of officers to determine if he should be separated.  The board would
determine whether he should be discharged immediately or whether discharge
should be delayed until his statutory military service obligation was
completed.  His commander informed him that if he was separated, his
service could be characterized as under conditions other than honorable.
The applicant was advised of his rights.  There is no record of the
applicant's election of rights or a board of officers.

8.  In a 13 December 1981 letter, the unit commander indicated that he had
made an attempt to locate the applicant at his home address, but was unable
to locate him.

9.  Headquarters, 102d United States Army Reserve Command, St. Louis,
Missouri Orders 71-10 dated 1 June 1982 reassigned the applicant to the
USAR Control Group (Annual Training) due to unsatisfactory participation
with an effective date of 2 June 1982.  His service was characterized as
UOTHC.

10.  The applicant was discharged from the USAR on 13 April 1983 by
Department of the Army, Office of The Adjutant General, USAR Components
Personnel and Administration Center Orders D-04-900848 with an UOTHC
discharge.

11.  Army Regulation 135-178 (Separation of Enlisted Personnel), chapter 7,
the version in effect at the time, prescribed the procedures for separation
of enlisted members of the USAR for misconduct by reason of fraudulent
entry, conviction by civil court, other disqualifying patterns or acts of
misconduct, and unsatisfactory participation.  In pertinent part, it stated
that an enlisted member separated for the reasons indicated would normally
be furnished a characterization of service of UOTHC.

12.  Army Regulation 135-91 states, in part, that a Soldier is an
unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from
scheduled inactive duty training occur during a one-year period.  An
unexcused absence from a MUTA occurs when a Soldier fails to attend or
complete the entire period of scheduled duty.  This applies to a Soldier of
a unit or USAR Control Group.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant had missed unit drills
without being excused for the periods 22 to 23 November 1980, 24 to 25
January 1981 and 11 to 12 April 1981.  As a result, he was declared an
unsatisfactory participant.

2.  The applicant was discharged from the USAR on 13 April 1983 for
unsatisfactory participation under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-
178 with service characterized as UOTHC discharge in accordance with the
governing regulation.

3.  There also is no apparent error, injustice, or inequity on which to
base recharacterization of his discharge.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 13 April 1983; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 12 April 1986.  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

BE______  HF______  RR______  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.




                                  Barbara Ellis_________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050004540                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051019                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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