RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           22 December 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050008702


      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             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Ted S. Kanamine               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert L. Duecaster           |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette B. McPherson         |     |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, that his general, under honorable
conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he believes his commander’s decision
to separate him was the result of his lack of knowledge of the disease of
alcoholism.  He claims he was unjustly refused treatment for this disease.


3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement and his separation
document (DD Form 214) in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 16 August 1985.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
3 June 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’s record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 8 February 1983.  He was trained in, awarded and
served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11BP (Infantryman-
Parachutist), and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty
was private first class (PFC).

4.  The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  It does reveal a
disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment
under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ) on two separate occasions, and his being absent without leave (AWOL)
for 3 days from 21 May through
23 May 1985.

5.  The applicant enrolled in the Army Drug and Alcohol Prevention Control
Program (ADAPCP) as a self-referral.

6.  On 13 May 1985, the ADAPCP Clinical Director completed a progress
status form that indicated the applicant had no desire to change his
behavior, and that he had a long history of alcohol and drug abuse.  This
coupled with his behavior problems indicate short term treatment would be
unsuccessful given the applicant’s stated desire not to stay in the Army.
The Clinical Director recommended the applicant be processed

7.  On 15 July 1985, the applicant’s unit commander notified him that
separation action under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-
200, was being initiated on him based on his history of alcohol and drug
abuse, as confirmed by ADAPCP personnel.

8.  On 16 July 1985, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was
advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, its effects,
and of the rights available to him.  Subsequent to this counseling, the
applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

9.  The separation authority approved the separation action on the
applicant and directed he receive a GD.  On 16 August 1985, the applicant
was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he
completed a total of
2 years, 6 months and 6 days of creditable active military service, and
that he accrued 3 days of time lost due to AWOL.

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

11.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that his commander’s lack of knowledge
regarding the disease of alcoholism resulted in his being discharged was
carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support
this claim.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the unit commander’s decision to
separate the applicant was only taken after evaluating the applicant and
the information provided by ADAPCP determined that based on his long
history of drug and alcohol abuse and his strong desire to leave the Army,
his short-term treatment would be unsuccessful.

3.  The record confirms the applicant’s separation processing was
accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All
requirements of law and regulatory were met, and the rights of the
applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further,
the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of
service.

4.  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 this requirement.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 16 August 1985.  Therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
15 August 1988.  However, he 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

___TSK__  __RLD__  __JBM __  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.




            ____Ted S. Kanamine_____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050008702                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/12/22                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1085/08/16                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 C9                           |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |ADAPCP Rehab Failure                    |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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