RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        31 August 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060001830


      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. G. E. Vandenberg              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann            |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Karmin S. Jenkins             |     |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 general discharge (GD) be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states he did his duty honorably.  He relates that he
enlisted with a drug problem and the Army didn’t do enough to help.  After
suffering with a dependency problem for 17 years he is now drug free and
wishes to rebuild his life.

3.  The applicant provides no additional supporting documentation.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 11 March 1988, the date of his discharge.  The
application submitted in this case is dated 24 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.  The records show the applicant completed and signed a DD Form 398-2
(Department of Defense Personnel Security Questionnaire) on 9 April 1987,
indicating he had never purchased or used any illegal drugs.

4.  At the time of his enlistment he acknowledged, by initialing at item 2
on the DA Form 3286-61/1 (Statement of Understanding), that he had read and
understood the Army’s no tolerance policies and the consequences that could
occur if he used illegal drugs.

5.  The applicant enlisted under the delayed entry program on 9 April 1987
and entered active duty on 12 May 1987.

6.  The applicant tested positive for cocaine on a random urinanalysis
conducted on 31 October 1987.

7.  On 18 November 1987 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
for wrongful use of cocaine.   His punishment was reduction to pay grade E-
1, 45 days of extra duty, and forfeiture of $329.00 pay.  The forfeiture of
pay was suspended for three months.

8.  The applicant again tested positive for illegal use of cocaine on 8
January 1988.

9.  On 19 February 1988 the applicant’s unit commander initiated separation
proceedings under Army regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(b) for illegal
drug use.  The unit commander recommended the applicant receive a GD.

10.  After consulting with a military attorney, the applicant acknowledged
his rights under the UCMJ and declined to make a statement on his own
behalf.

11.  In concert with his separation processing the applicant was afforded a
mental status examination.  The applicant's behavior found to be normal.
He was alert and oriented.  His mood was depressed; his thinking clear and
thought content normal.  The applicant was mentally responsible and able to
distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  He met the
medical retention standards of Army Regulation 40-501 and was qualified for
separation.

12.  The discharge authority approved the discharge recommendation and
directed that the applicant’s service be characterized as under honorable
conditions.

13.  The applicant was discharged with a GD under Army Regulation 635-200,
paragraph 14-12c for misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs.  He had 10 months
of creditable service with no time lost.

14.  The applicant’s service medical records do not indicate any treatment
for drug related problems.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative
Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted
personnel from active duty.  Chapter 14, in effect at the time, dealt with
separation for various types of misconduct, which include drug abuse, and
provides that individuals identified as drug abusers may be separated prior
to their normal expiration of term of service (ETS).  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and
regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is
lenient compared to his record of misconduct.

2.  At the time of his enlistment the applicant specifically denied use of
any illegal drugs.  He now contradicts those sworn statements by stating he
had a drug problem prior to enlisting.

3.  The applicant was well aware of the Army’s position on illegal drug use
and despite having been punished once before, he again used illegal drugs.

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 11 March 1988; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 10 March 1991.  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

__JCR __  __WDP__  __KSJ___  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.




                                  ___William D. Powers_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060001830                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060831                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19880311                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200. . . . .                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |




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