RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            08 AUGUST 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20060000967


      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. Deyon D. Battle               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Anderholm               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Dale DeBruler                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. James Hastie                  |     |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 under other than honorable
conditions be upgraded to a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he was discharged due to being absent without
leave (AWOL) and excessive drunkenness.  He states that he made contact
with a sergeant first class of the Kansas Army National Guard (KSARNG) in
regards to a recruiting advertisement in the paper.  He states that he
spoke with him about his desire to right a wrong from several years ago
when he was in the Army and was young and not so wise.  He states that a
program that was in existence at the time would allow him to acquire a
waiver through the Army National Guard, which he did receive.  He states
that he then proceeded to the Military Entrance Processing Station in
Kansas City and he was able to pass everything pertaining to his physical;
however, he was not within the required guidelines for body fat ratio.  He
states that he has come down in the amount of weight that he lifts,
modified his diet and has started jogging; however it is not enough to join
the KSARNG.  He stated that he still needs his discharge upgraded to a
general discharge, and that as a man, not a young boy, he would be grateful
for the opportunity to right a wrong that he committed.  He states that he
has no excuses for neglecting his duties, and that he has not drank an
alcoholic beverage in 12 years.  He states that he no longer has a desire
to drink, and that he is hopeful to give this country his heart, his mind,
and his service.

3.  The applicant provides in support of his application, a copy of a
letter dated 1 October 2005, addressed to The Commander, explaining the
circumstances surrounding his discharge; a copy of a memorandum from the
KSARNG Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, dated 3 October 2005, approving
the applicant's request for waiver for enlistment; a copy of a request for
enlistment waiver dated 30 September 2005; a copy of his substance abuse
control program chronological case notes; a copy of his alcohol evaluation
background information sheet; a copy of his report of medical history; a
copy of his security clearance application; a copy of his Certificate of
Release or Discharge (DD Form 214); a copy of a letter delegating authority
to the Commander, Headquarters Command, United States Army Training Center
and Fort Dix, to approve separations for the good of the service submitted
under chapter 10; and a copy of a Drug/Alcohol Abuse Control Program
History and Evaluation.




CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 25 November 1987.  The application submitted in this case
is dated 17 January 2006.

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.  On 10 May 1985, he enlisted in the Army in Newark, New Jersey, for
4 years, in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his training
as a cannon crewmember.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 10
November 1985, and he was promoted to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 February
1987.

4.  On 14 March 1986, the applicant was referred to the Drug and Alcohol
Abuse Control Program for evaluation.  The abuse control officer noted that
the applicant was very inarticulate and had little insight into his
problems; that he was drinking regularly in excessive amounts to relieve
stress; that he was having difficulty adapting to his job and the military;
that his father was an alcoholic; and that he had no social support system
at his base.  The abuse control officer further noted that the applicant
needed to learn to control his drinking and use more adaptive ways to cope
with stress; that he needed to learn how to express his feelings more to
others; and that he was overwhelmed with to many adjustment demands.  The
abuse control officer recommended a local 10-day program for the applicant.
 The applicant entered rehabilitation on 14 April 1986.

5. Nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on 1 April
1987, for being AWOL from 3 March until 15 March 1987.  His punishment
consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, 14 days of restriction,
and 14 days of extra duty.

6. The available records show that he went AWOL again on 19 May 1987, and
he remained absent until he surrendered to military authorities on 15
September 1987.



7.  On 25 September 1987, the applicant was notified that charges were
pending against him for being AWOL from 19 May until 15 September 1987.
After consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for discharge under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the
service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.

8.  The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 4
November 1987.  Accordingly, on 25 November 1987, the applicant was
discharged under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of
Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-
martial.  He had completed 2 years, 2 months and 5 days of net active
service.

9.  On 1 June 1989 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's
petition to upgrade his discharge.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides,
in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses
for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may
submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial
by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges
have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.
Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under
other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

11.  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.  The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing
that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute
allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion
requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens
that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on
the date of final action by the ADRB.  In complying with this decision, the
ABCMR has adopted the broader policy of calculating the 3-year time limit
from the date of exhaustion in any case where a lower level administrative
remedy is utilized.





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.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant's contentions have been noted.  However, they are not
sufficiently mitigating to warrant the relief requested.  While he was on
active duty in the Army, he had approximately 131 days of lost time due to
AWOL.  He had no desire to remain in the Army and he submitted a request
for discharge.  The fact that he now has a desire to join the KSARNG is not
a sufficient basis to change his records to show that he served in the Army
under honorable conditions.

4.  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 this requirement.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.

6.  Records show the applicant exhausted his administrative remedies in
this case when his case was last reviewed by the ADRB on 1 June 1989.  As a
result, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any
error or injustice to this Board expired on 31 May 1992.  However, 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

___JA___  ___DD __  ____JH__  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 Anderholm_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060000967                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |YYYYMMDD                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19871125                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |CHAPTER 10/FOR THE GOOD OF SERVICE      |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES         1.  689  |144.7000/FOR THE GOOD OF SERVICE        |
|2.  708                 |144.7100/AWOL                           |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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