RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           22 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050005555


      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. Thomas Pagan                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Eric Andersen                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Joe Schroeder                 |     |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, in effect, the record is unjust because he did
not know a general discharge would have a long term effect on his
employment opportunities.  He states when he entered the Reserve he did not
have any guidance in his life, he did not get any counseling from his
commander, and he served five years of a six year obligation.

3.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 14 January 1983.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 3 April 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 in the North Carolina Army National Guard on
16 September 1977 for a period of 6 years.  He was ordered to active duty
on
30 December 1977 for training and released from active duty on 13 May 1978.


4.  Records contain a number of Letters of Instruction - Unexcused Absence,
the earliest dated 12 February 1979.  Paragraph 2 informed him that under
the provisions of Army Regulation 135-91, he was required to attend all
scheduled unit training assemblies and annual training periods.  Paragraph
7 of a Letters of Instruction - Unexcused Absence, dated 15 July 1980,
informed him that if he accumulated nine unexcused absences within a one-
year period, he could be declared an unsatisfactory participant.

5.  On 6 June 1982, the applicant's unit commander initiated a
recommendation for separation due to unsatisfactory participation under the
provisions of Army Regulation 135-178, chapter 7.  He cited that the
applicant had failed to attend weekend training assemblies as directed by
appropriate law and regulations.  He also recommended that the applicant be
furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  Records show
the applicant consulted with counsel, requested consideration of his case
by a board of officers, and that attempts by his subordinate unit to
contact him to provide instructions were unsuccessful.

6.  On 20 November 1982, the applicant's legal counsel appeared before an
Administrative Discharge Review Board in Clinton, North Carolina.  The
board recommended that the applicant be separated from the North Carolina
Army National Guard with a general discharge.

7.  On 14 January 1983, the applicant was discharged from the Army National
Guard with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-
178 for unsatisfactory participation.  He was transferred to the U.S. Army
Reserve Control Group (Annual Training).  He had served 5 years, 3 months,
and 28 days of creditable service.

8.  Army Regulation 135-91 (Service Obligations, Methods of Fulfillment,
Participation Requirements, and Enforcement Procedures) states that, before

1 June 1984, all personnel incurred a 6-year statutory obligation on
initial entry into the Armed Forces.  It states that enlisted Soldiers who
are obligated by statute or contract will be charged with unsatisfactory
participation when, without proper authority, they accrue in any 1-year
period a total of 9 or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills.

9.  Army Regulation 135-178 (Separation of Enlisted Personnel) provides for
the separation of enlisted personnel of the Army Reserve and Army National
Guard.  Chapter 7 of the regulation, in effect at the time, governed
separation for misconduct for disqualifying patterns or acts of conduct
which included an established pattern for shirking.  When discharged under
this provision, the characterization of service was normally under other
than honorable conditions, except that an honorable or general discharge
might be furnished if warranted by the particular circumstances of the
case.

10.  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.  Although the applicant contends that he did not receive adequate
counseling, evidence of record shows the applicant consulted with counsel
prior to requesting a board of officers.  He had been informed numerous
times of the requirement to attend all scheduled unit training assemblies
and annual training periods and that if he accumulated nine unexcused
absences within a one-year period, he could be declared an unsatisfactory
participant.

3.  The applicant's contention that he served five years of a six year
obligation is noted.  However, as stated above, he had been put on notice
since February 1979 that he was not satisfactorily participating in his
Army National Guard unit.   It must be presumed that the applicant’s
discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-178 was
administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations and
that his characterization of service was based upon the particular
circumstances of his case.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting his
request for an honorable discharge.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged injustice
now under consideration on 14 January 1983; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any injustice expired on 13
January 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

TP_____  __EA___  _JS_____  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.




            ____Thomas Pagan______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050005555                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051122                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19830114                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 135-178                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unsatisfactory participation            |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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