RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            19 JULY 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20050018290


      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. Jessie B. Strickland          |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Vick                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Barbara Ellis                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Donald Lewy                   |     |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 discharge be
upgraded to honorable and that the narrative reason for separation be
changed to a more favorable reason.

2.  The applicant states that he has been out of the service since 1987 and
desires to have his discharge upgraded with a more favorable narrative
reason for separation.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his report of separation (DD Form 214)
with his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 17 March 1987.  The application submitted in this case is dated
29 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.  He enlisted on 2 August 1983 for a period of 4 years, training as
Quartermaster and Chemical Equipment Repairer and assignment to a FORCES
Command (FORSCOM) unit.  He successfully completed his training and was
initially assigned to Fort Carson, Colorado.  He was advanced to the pay
grade of E-4 on 2 August 1985.

4.  On 21 September 1985, he was transferred to Germany for assignment to a
support battalion of the 3rd Armored Division.

5.  On 30 December 1985, the applicant’s commander initiated action to bar
him from reenlistment.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation, the
applicant’s failure to respond to counseling regarding the failure to
manage his personal affairs and writing 20 dishonored checks.  The
applicant acknowledged the notification and elected not to submit a
statement in his own behalf.  The appropriate authority approved the bar to
reenlistment on 14 January 1986.

6.  On 10 February 1987, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was
initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct involving
commission of a serious offense and use/abuse of illegal drugs.  She cited
the urinalysis results that tested positive for marijuana of a sample
provided by the applicant and his failure to respond to all attempts at
rehabilitation as the basis for her recommendation.

7.  On 12 February 1987, after consulting with counsel, the applicant
elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He also acknowledged
that he understood the prejudice he could expect to encounter with a
general discharge and that he understood that he could apply to the Army
Discharge Review Board (ADRB) and this Board for an upgrade of his
discharge.

8.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on
11 March 1987 and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge
Certificate.

9.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions 17 March
1987, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c for
misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs.  He had served 3 years, 7 months and
16 days of total active service.

10.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever
applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-
year statute of limitations.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and
procedures for separating personnel for misconduct.  Specific categories
included minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, involvement in
frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military
authorities, and commission of a serious offense which includes drug
offenses.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally
considered appropriate and there have never been any provisions for an
automatic upgrade of such discharges.




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.  Accordingly, the narrative reason and separation code issued were
appropriate under the circumstances of his case.

3.  The applicant's contentions have been noted; however, they are not
sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to the seriousness
of his misconduct and his overall undistinguished 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 17 March 1987; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
16 March 1990.  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

___JV___  ____BE _  ___DL __  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.




                                  _______James Vick________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050018290                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060719                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(GD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1987/03/17                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200/ CH 14 . . . . .             |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |misconduct                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES                  |                                        |
|1.144.6000/626/a60.00   |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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