RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        3 August 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050017940


      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. Maria C. Sanchez              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Margaret K. Patterson         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Gerald J. Purcell             |     |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 discharge be upgraded to an honorable
discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was discharged for having three
driving while intoxicated (DWI) infractions.  He contends that he only had
two incidents of DWI, one on-post and one off-post.  The applicant further
states that he should have been given the opportunity for rehabilitation.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 1 March 1984, the date of his discharge.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 28 November 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 1 March 1984 for a period
of 4 years.  After completion of basic and advanced individual training, he
was awarded military occupational specialty 63G (Fuel and Electrical System
Repairer).

4.  DA Form 3975 (Military Police Report), dated 1 January 1985, shows that
on 30 December 1984, the applicant was involved in a major traffic accident
and found to be intoxicated.  This report further shows that he was
arrested, transported, and administered a Breath Alcohol Content test with
a blood alcohol level of .15% which resulted in his incarceration.



5.  Item 3 (Type Complaint) of the applicant's DA Form 3975, dated 15
February 1985, shows the complaint was for failure to obey a lawful order.
Item 18 (Details of Report) of this form shows the applicant was observed
operating a motorcycle and failed to stop at a stop sign.  This form
further shows a check of the Installation Driving Revocation Roster
revealed that his driving privileges had been revoked and also found he had
no insurance.  This form also shows the applicant was apprehended and
transported to the military police station.

6.  On 26 March 1985, the applicant was given a Letter of Reprimand for
being apprehended for the offense of driving while intoxicated.  This
letter shows that on 30 December 1984, he was apprehended by the Texas
Department of Public Safety and charged with DWI and that his breathalyzer
test result was .15%.  The applicant acknowledged that he read and
understood the allegations made against him and elected not to make a
statement.

7.  The applicant's service records contain a DA Form 2496 (Disposition
Form) which provides his record of previous Articles 15.  This form shows
that he had received a letter of reprimand and an Article 15 for two
separate incidents of DWI.  This form also shows at that present time, he
was enrolled in a Drug and Alcohol Program.

8.  On 13 August 1986, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for DWI on 26 July 1986.

9.  DA Form 3975, dated 16 August 1986, shows the applicant was arrested
for DWI on 26 July 1986.

10.  On 26 August 1986, the Chief, Civil Law Branch advised the applicant
that after two previous DWI's which caused his installation driving
privileges to be suspended, his third instance of DWI resulted in
revocation of his driving privileges until 22 January 1995.

11.  On 9 September 1986, the applicant was notified that he was being
considered for elimination from the service under the provisions of chapter
14, paragraph 14-12a of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations –
Enlisted Personnel) for misconduct.

12.  On 12 September 1986, the applicant indicated that he was counseled by
appropriate counsel, that he is being considered for separation for reason
of misconduct under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-
200.  He elected to not waive his rights to military counsel, submitted
statements on his behalf, expressed his wishes for an honorable discharge,
and requested that copies of the documents be sent to the separation
authority supporting the proposed separation.

13.  The applicant also acknowledged and understood that he may encounter
substantial prejudice in civilian life if he is issued a general discharge
under honorable conditions.

14.  The applicant submitted five statements from fellow Soldiers.  In
summary, the statements show that the applicant was viewed as an
outstanding Soldier, who was disciplined, dedicated, a hard worker, self-
sufficient, determined, and driven.

15.  The applicant also submitted a statement, dated 12 September 1986, on
his own behalf.  He stated that he is a good worker, has contributed
greatly in his work place, and has always taken an initiative when
something needs to be done.  He contends that based on the above he should
be given an honorable discharge.

16.  On 24 September 1986, the commanding officer of Headquarters, Division
Support Command, 2nd Armored Division, Fort Hood, Texas approved the
discharge under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 and
directed that the applicant be separated with a general discharge.

17.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was separated on 9 October 1986,
under the provisions of paragraph 14-12b of Army Regulation 635-200, by
reason of misconduct and issued a General Discharge Certificate.  He had
served 2 years, 7 months, and 9 days of net active Federal service.

18.  There is no evidence in the available records which shows that the
applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his
discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitation.

19.  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, and convictions by civil authorities.
Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly
established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.
 A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate
for a soldier discharged under this chapter.  However, the separation
authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the
soldier’s overall record.  Only a general court-martial convening authority
may approve an honorable discharge or delegate approval authority for an
honorable discharge under this provision of regulation.

20.  Paragraph 14-12b of Army Regulation 635-200 states members are subject
to separation for a pattern of misconduct consisting of discreditable
involvement with civil or military authorities, and conduct prejudicial to
good order and discipline includes conduct violative of the accepted
standards of personal conduct found in the Uniformed Code of Military
Justice, Army Regulations, the civil law, and time-honored customs and
traditions of the Army

21.  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.  The applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded to an
honorable discharge because he only had two incidents of DWI.

2.  Evidence of record clearly shows the applicant was involved in numerous
DWI offenses and traffic violations.

3.  The applicant contends that he was not afforded the opportunity for
rehabilitation.  Evidence shows that the applicant was in an Alcohol and
Drug Program provided by the military.

4.  Evidence shows that the applicant was properly and equitably discharged
in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time.  Lacking evidence
to the contrary, it is determined that all requirements of law and
regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected
throughout the separation process.

5.  The applicant's administrative separation was in compliance with
applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would
tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge and reason for
separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

6.  Since the applicant only completed 2 years, 7 months, and 9 days of his
four-year enlistment commitment and records show an extensive pattern of
misconduct including several DWIs, his quality of military service does not
meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army
personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

7.  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 regarding his request
to upgrade his discharge.

8.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 9 October 1986; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 8 October 1989.  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

_MJF___  _MKP___  _GJP____  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.




                                     _Margaret K. Patterson___
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050017940                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060803                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1986/10/09                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, para 14-12b                 |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Misconduct – pattern of misconduct      |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000.0000                           |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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