RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        18 July 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060000088


      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. Beverly A. Young              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick McGann                |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Ernestine Fields              |     |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 under honorable
conditions discharge be upgraded and the narrative reason for separation be
changed.

2.  The applicant states he can not enter a Veteran’s Program in Lowell,
[MA]. The program is for homeless veterans with alcohol and drug problems.


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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 27 December 1984.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 14 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 29 December 1982 for a
period of three years.  He completed basic training at Fort Jackson, South
Carolina and was further assigned to Fort Belvoir, Virginia, for advanced
individual training (AIT).  At the completion of AIT, he was awarded
military occupational specialty 52C (Utilities Equipment Repairer).  He was
promoted to private first class on 29 December 1983.

4.  On 17 August 1984, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for wrongfully possessing
marijuana on or about 0715 hours on 7 August 1984.  His punishment
consisted of a reduction to private E-1 (suspended until 15 November 1984);
a forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 2 months; extra duties for 45
days; and restriction to billets, dining facility, chapel and PX (Post
Exchange) for 45 days.  The suspension of the punishment of reduction to
private E-1 was vacated on 16 October 1984.

5.  On 31 October 1984, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under
Article 15 for wrongfully using marijuana on or about 4 September 1984.
His punishment consisted of extra duty for 45 days or until his expiration
of term of service (ETS) whichever came first; restriction to billets, work
section, dining facility, PX, and chapel for 45 days or until ETS,
whichever came first; and a forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 2
months.  The applicant elected to appeal the Article 15 proceedings and
submitted additional matters.  The appeal was reviewed and it was
determined that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and
regulation and the punishment imposed was not disproportionate to the
offense committed.  The appropriate authority denied the appeal.

6.  The applicant’s discharge packet is not available.  However, his DD
Form 214 shows he was discharged on 27 December 1984 under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12a for misconduct - drug abuse
with issuance of a general under honorable conditions discharge.  He
completed 1 year, 11 months, and 29 days creditable active service.  His DD
Form 214 shows he was given a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of
"JKK" (Misconduct – Drug Abuse).

7.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 established
policy and prescribed 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 would be taken to separate a member for misconduct
when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impracticable or
was unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions
was 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.

9.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) prescribed the specific authorities
(regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the
separation of members from active military service, and the SPD codes to be
used for these stated reasons.  The regulation in effect at the time showed
that the SPD code “JKK” as shown on the applicant’s DD Form 214 specified
the narrative reason for separation as involuntary release or transfer for
“Misconduct – Drug Abuse” and that the authority for separation under this
SPD was “AR 635-200, Chapter 14.”
10.  Army Regulation 635-200 governs the separation of enlisted personnel.
In pertinent part, it states that an honorable discharge is a separation
with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality
of the Soldier's
service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and
performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that
any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Where there
have been infractions of discipline, the extent thereof should be
considered, as well as the seriousness of the offense(s).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of the applicant's discharge proceedings, it is presumed
to have been administratively correct and in conformance with applicable
regulations.

2.  The applicant’s service record shows he received two Article 15s, one
for possessing marijuana and one for using marijuana.

3.  Considering the nature of the applicant's offenses, it appears the
chain of command determined that separation under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12a for misconduct – drug abuse was
appropriate.

4.  There also is no apparent error, injustice, or inequity on which to
base recharacterization of his discharge or to change his narrative reason
for separation.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 27 December 1984; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 26 December 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

LE______  PM______  EF______  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.




                                  Lester Echols_________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060000088                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060718                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19841227                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200, paragraph 14-12c             |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Misconduct-drug abuse                   |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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