RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        29 August 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050017601


      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. Paul M. Smith                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Ronald D. Gant                |     |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 the narrative reason for
separation “Unfitness – Drug Abuse” be changed to reflect his character of
service “Honorable”.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that before he was discharged from
service he was never tested for drugs.  He had two sessions with a
counselor and was scheduled for more counseling but he had to go to the
field with his unit.  He was later sent home before his unit returned from
the field and he was never fully evaluated.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 24 May 1974.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
9 December 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 13 November 1972.  He was trained in, awarded and
served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B10 (Light Weapons
Infantryman), and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty
was pay grade E-3.   The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor,
significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

4.  On 25 September 1973, the applicant enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug
Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) as a self-referral.  The
applicant reported that he needed counseling and rehabilitation for heroin,
barbiturates, tranquillizers, amphetamines, hallucinogens, hashish and
alcohol abuse.  The applicant attended eight counseling sessions for drug
and alcohol abuse and missed one session.  The applicant’s record does not
contain evidence of any drug testing.

5.  On 6 November 1973, the applicant was formally counseled for his
unsatisfactory performance of duty.

6.  On 12 December 1973, the ADAPCP Clinical Director completed a progress
status form that indicated the applicant displayed an unwillingness to
follow through with established goals of becoming drug free.  The applicant
was advised to enter the detoxification program, the applicant refused to
participate in the detoxification program.  The applicant expressed various
reasons to justify his drug abuse; most of the reasons appeared to be
excuses to continue the use of drugs.  It was determined, that the
applicant did not make a sincere effort to cut down or stop his drug abuse.
 The applicant admitted to his counselors that he was still heavily using
drugs, primarily barbiturates, amphetamines, and hallucinogens and he was
not motivated to discontinue abuse of drugs and alcohol.  It was determined
that his potential for successful rehabilitation was not possible.  The
Clinical Director recommended that the applicant be separated from service
under the appropriate Army Regulation.

7.  On 2 January 1974, the commander initiated separation action under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13-5a (3) (b) for unfitness.
 The discharge was recommended because of the applicant’s drug abuse, his
negative attitude toward military authority; his unsatisfactory performance
and conduct and because the applicant resisted all attempts to be
rehabilitated.

8.  On 8 January 1974, a physical examination cleared the applicant for
separation.

9.  On the same day, a Mental Status Evaluation found the applicant 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.

10.  On 19 January 1974, the applicant acknowledged notification of the
action.  He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived
personal appearance before such a board and waived representation by
counsel.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  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 his counseling, the applicant elected not to submit a
statement in his own behalf.

11.  On 10 April 1974, the appropriate authority approved the separation
action on the applicant and directed that he be discharged from service
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13-5a (3) (b) with
a discharge under honorable conditions and that the narrative reason for
separation be “Unfitness-Drug Abuse”.  On 24 May 1974, the applicant was
discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214, he was issued shows he completed
a total of
1 year, 6 months and 12 days of creditable active military service.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel for (unfitness).  Chapter 13 contains the
policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for
unfitness, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a
member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member
will not develop sufficiently.

13.  On 27 November 1979, the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia, issued an order that required the Army to recharacterize to
fully honorable discharge of any former service member who received a less
than honorable discharge as the result of an administrative proceeding in
which the Army introduced evidence developed as a direct or indirect result
of compelled urinalysis testing for the purpose of identifying drug
abusers.  The applicant’s military records and the circumstances of his
discharge were reviewed, and it was determined that the applicant qualified
under the court order.

14.  On 4 November 1980, the applicant’s discharge was upgraded to a fully
honorable discharge, no other changes were authorized.

15.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army
Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for any more changes to his discharge within
its 15-year statute of limitations.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that the narrative reason for his separation
should be changed to reflect his character of service was carefully
considered.  However, there is no evidence nor has the applicant presented
any evidence to warranted relief beyond that already provided.

2.  The applicant’s record shows that he violated the Army's policy not to
possess or use illegal drugs, the applicant compromised the special trust
and confidence placed in him as a Soldier and knowingly risked his military
career.  This misconduct clearly diminished the quality of his service and
the narrative reason for separation is accurately reflected on his DD Form
214.  Therefore, absent any evidence of error or injustice related to the
narrative reason for separation the reason remains valid.

3.  The evidence of record further 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 protected throughout the separation process.

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 4 November 1980; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
3 November 1983.  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

________  ________  ________  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.




                                               Paul M. Smith____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR                                      |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/08/29                              |
|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]