RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        31 AUGUST 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050016010


      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. Gale J. Thomas                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William Powers                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jeffrey Redmann               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Karmin Jenkins                |     |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 records be corrected by upgrading his
discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states that his discharge was unconstitutional and
unscientific.  He was advised that after his discharge if he remained out
of trouble for 6 months his discharge would be automatically changed to
honorable.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active duty) in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 10 June 1983.  The application submitted in this case is dated
21 October 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 Regular Army on 12 November 1980, for a
period of 3 years.  He served in Germany from March 1981 to June 1983.

4.  On 23 August 1982, the applicant satisfactory completed a 180 days of a
Track II Program under the Army Drug and Alcohol Control Program (ADAPCP).

5.  On 30 March 1983, the applicant self referred himself to the ADAPCP
because of excessive alcohol use that was causing poor job performance.

6.  On 18 May 1983, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was
initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, Chapter 9, for having been declared a rehabilitation failure in
the ADAPCP.  The applicant was advised of his rights and assigned a date
for his medical examination.


7.  On 18 May 1983, the applicant acknowledged notification by his
commander of his pending separation action.  He waived legal counsel and
elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.

8.  On 19 May 1983, a synopsis of the applicant's rehabilitation activities
revealed that his progress had been satisfactory, however on 18 March 1983,
he tested positive for drugs during a urinalysis test.  The evaluation
noted that the positive urinalysis indicated that the applicant was no
longer motivated to change his drug abuse pattern, and that his potential
for successful rehabilitation appeared poor.  The applicant's counselor and
Clinical Director recommended his separation as a rehabilitative failure.

9.  The applicant's commander recommended his discharge from the Army,
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, noting that the
applicant was continuously involved in acts which were drug related and did
not respond to counseling efforts, nor did he show the desire to control
his alcohol abuse.

10.  The appropriate separation authority directed the applicant's
discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, with
the issuance of a general discharge.

11.  On 10 June 1983, the applicant was discharged under the above cited
regulation with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, for
alcohol abuse, rehabilitation failure.  His DD Form 214 indicates he had 2
years,
6 months and 29 days of active service, and was discharge under honorable
conditions.

12.  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.  The regulation provided for issuance of
an honorable or general discharge.






DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  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.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  The applicant was
enrolled in an ADAPCP and failed to comply with treatment plans and goals,
continued to abuse alcohol, and was determined to be a rehabilitative
failure.

3.  There is no evidence and the applicant has not provided any evidence to
substantiate his claim that he was told his discharge would be
automatically upgraded to honorable 6 months after his discharge.  The
applicant was given numerous opportunities for improvement through
counseling and therapy, however, he did not avail himself to those
opportunities.

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

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 10 June 1983; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 9 June 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

___WP__  ___JR___  ___KJ___  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.




                                  _____ William Powers________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050016010                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060831                                |
|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.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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