RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        7 SEPTEMBER 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050016712


      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:

|     |Ms. Susan Powers                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. David Haasenritter            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Jonathan Rost                 |     |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 the reason he is asking for his discharge to
be upgraded is because he was not given a chance to correct his faults.  He
asks to be forgiven for his mistakes and upgrade his discharge to
honorable.  He was discharged from the Army because he was a sergeant who
failed a urinalysis test, based on a policy that came out that year that
stated any E-5 and above who came up positive on a urinalysis test would be
discharged.  If he had been given a chance to rehabilitate he would have
continued in the Army which he loved so very much.  He was a good sergeant,
but was young and had a problem with drugs.

3.  The applicant further states that he is older now and realizes that he
made a big mistake.  Today he is born again believer of God.  He has
repented his sins, and asks that the Board also forgive him.

4.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on
5 October 1984.  The application submitted in this case is dated 19 August
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 22 September 1978, for a
period of three years.  At the time of his enlistment he was 23 years old.
He served in Germany from January 1978 to September 1981, and from March
1983 to October 1984.

4.  He was promoted to pay grade E-3, E-4, and E-5 on 1 August 1979, 1
August 1980, and 5 August 1982, respectively.
5.  On 11 April 1984, a Urinalysis Custody and Report Record show the
applicant tested positive for drugs on two occasions.

6.  On 15 May 1984, the applicant was notified by this commander that he
was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, for abuse of an illegal drug.  The reason
for his commander's action was the applicant testing positive on 26 March
1984, for use of Illegal drugs.  The applicant was advised of his rights
and waiver options.

7.  On 6 June 1984, a medical examination cleared the applicant for
separation.

8.  On 8 June 1984, a Mental Status Evaluation cleared the applicant for
separation.

9.  In July 1984, a bar to reenlistment was initiated, noting that the
applicant’s habits were detrimental to the maintenance of good order and
discipline in the unit, and that he had been counseled and advised of the
basis for the bar.

10.  The bar to reenlistment was approved, and the commander noted that the
bar was a rehabilitative measure designed to encourage the applicant to
pursue his current duties in a military manner and attain the high standard
demanded of a Soldier, that it was not to be construed as being
disciplinary in nature.

11.  On 30 July 1984, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under
the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for
operating a vehicle while drunk and for assaulting a female by striking her
in the face with an open hand.  His punishment was reduction to pay grade E-
4, a forfeiture of pay for
2 months, and extra duty.

12.  There are no additional facts and circumstances concerning the
applicant's discharge in the available records.  However, his DD Form 214
(Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty) indicates he was
discharged on
5 October 1984, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter
14, for misconduct-commission of a serious offense.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and
prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific
categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct,
commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, and
desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a
member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is
impractical or is unlikely to succeed.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the
discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation
applicable at the time.

2.  The regulation, in effect at the time, provided that action would be
taken to separate a member for misconduct when it was clearly established
that rehabilitation was impractical or was unlikely to succeed.  Since the
applicant's discharge proceeding are not in the available records the Board
can not determine what, if any, rehabilitation actions were taken.
However, if it was established that rehabilitation was impractical or
unlikely to succeed the rehabilitation would not have been offered to the
applicant.

3.  The fact that the applicant now realizes his mistakes, and is a born
again believer of God does not warrant upgrading his discharge to
honorable.

4.  The applicant's contention that he was young with a drug problem is not
sufficient to warrant the relief requested.  The Board notes that the
applicant was 23 years of age at the time of his enlistment, and 29 years
of age at the time of his misconduct.

5.  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.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 5 October 1984; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
4 October 1987.  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

___SP___  ___DH __  __JR ___  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.




                                  ______Susan Powers________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050016712                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060907                                |
|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]