RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        12 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050005172


      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. Judy L. Blanchard             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Stanley Kelley                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Melvin H. Meyer               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. 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, in effect, an upgrade of her general discharge
to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she tried to correct her action
by admitting herself into a drug program when she returned from overseas.

3.  The applicant provides no additional supporting documents.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged, which occurred on

12 November 1982, the date she was released from active duty.  The
application submitted in this case is dated 20 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.  On 23 October 1979, the applicant enlisted into the Regular Army for 4
years. She completed the required training and was awarded military
occupational specialty 73C10 (Finance Specialist).  The highest grade she
achieved was pay grade E-4.

4.  On 15 August 1980, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP),
for disobeying a lawful order.  Her imposed punishment was a reduction to
pay grade E-1 (suspended for 6 months), a forfeiture of $71.00 pay
(suspended for
6 months) and 14 days extra duty (suspended for 6 months).

5.  On 14 September 1981, the applicant accepted an NJP for failure to
repair.  Her imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-3 (suspended
for
2 months), a forfeiture of $50.00 pay per month for 2 months and 14 days
extra duty.

6.  On 25 June 1982, the applicant accepted an NJP for altering her sick
slip.  Her imposed punishment was a verbal reprimand, a reduction to pay
grade E-1, a forfeiture of $250.00 pay per month for 2 months and 14 days
extra duty.

7.  The applicant’s record indicates that she was reported for being absent
without leave (AWOL) on two separate occasions from 10 to 13 June 1982 and
from 13 to 19 July 1982.  Her record does not indicate that she ever
punished for the AWOL offenses.

8.  On 13 September 1982, the applicant enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug
Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP).  A treatment plan was
devised, with the approval of the applicant, which consisted of individual
and group counseling and urinalysis testing.  On 7 and 12 October 1982, the
applicant tested positive for drug use.

9.  On 22 October 1982, the commander received a Rehabilitation Summary
Letter from the ADAPCP in reference to the applicant’s progress in the
rehabilitation program.  The letter stated in effect, that the applicant
was a rehabilitative failure because of her continued use of drugs and
because she failed to demonstrate the motivation necessary to deal
effectively with her drug abuse.  It was recommended that the applicant be
separated from military service under the appropriate regulation.

10.  On 25 October 1982, the commander notified the applicant that she was
being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-
200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure.  The commander’s
recommendation was based on the applicant’s action, which indicated that
she could not be rehabilitated for productive military service.  The
applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated
separation action and the rights available to her; she waived
consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of
officers.  She was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in hers
behalf, but she declined to do so.

11.  On 4 November 1982, the applicant completed a separation physical and
was found qualified for separation.

12.  On the same day, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation
and was found to be mentally competent, able to distinguish right from
wrong and to adhere to the right.  The applicant was also found to be
mentally capable of understanding and participating in board proceedings.

13.  On 10 November 1982, the appropriate authority approved the
recommendation and directed the issuance of a discharge under honorable
conditions (General).  On 12 November 1982, the applicant was discharged,
in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter
9 (Drug Abuse-Rehabilitation Failure), with a general discharge.  She had
completed a total of 3 years and 9 days of creditable active service and 9
days of time lost.

14.  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 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.

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

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s separation processing
was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All
requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant
were fully protected throughout the separation process.

2.  By violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, the
applicant compromised the special trust and confidence placed in her as a
Soldier and knowingly risked her military career.  This misconduct clearly
diminished the quality of hers service below that meriting a fully
honorable discharge.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 12 November 1982.  Thus, the time for
her to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on
11 November 1985.  However, she failed to 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

___SK __  __MHM__  __LMD__  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.




                                  _____ Stanley Kelley_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050005172                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051129                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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