RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:      14 December 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060002123


      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. Stephanie Thompkins           |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John N. Sloan                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |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, upgrade of his Army National Guard
(ARNG) discharge from general discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his NGB Form 22 (Report of
Separation and Record of Service) in block 24 (Character of Service) is in
error as it shows he received a general discharge.  He also states that he
does have in his possession a discharge certificate dated 1986 stating he
received an honorable discharge.  He completed all the obligated service
and wishes to have this general discharge removed from his file.  He also
states that he never received a copy of his discharge and it was requested
by the Veteran Employment Representative on his behalf and the error was
noticed at that time.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 4 December 1985, the date of his separation from the
Connecticut ARNG (CTARNG).  The application submitted in this case is dated
1 February 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 applicant's military records show he enlisted in the CTARNG, in pay
grade E-1, on 2 July 1980.  He was advanced to pay grade E-4 on 2 June
1984.

4.  On 20 May 1985, he was notified by a Letter of Instructions –Unexcused
Absence, of his absence from the scheduled unit training assembly (UTA) or
multiple unit training assembly (MUTA) on 1-2 on 18 May 1985.

5.  The applicant was reduced to pay grade E-3 on 19 August 1985.

6.  On 22 September 1985, he was notified by a Letter of Instructions
–Unexcused Absence, of his absence from the scheduled UTA or MUTA on 1-5 on
17 and 18 August 1985.

7.  On 23 September 1985, he was notified by a Letter of Instructions
–Unexcused Absence, of his absence from the scheduled UTA or MUTA on 1-4 on
21 and 22 September 1985.

8.  The applicant was reduced to pay grade E-2 on 23 September 1985.

9.  On 9 October 1985, he was notified by a Letter of Instructions
–Unexcused Absence, of his absence from the scheduled UTA or MUTA on 1-4 on
5 and 6 October 1985.  Each letter advised the applicant that if he
accumulated nine unexcused absences within a one year period, he could be
declared an unsatisfactory participant and transferred to the Individual
Ready Reserve (IRR) for the balance of his service obligation.

10.  On 13 November 1985, the applicant's unit commander requested orders
for the applicant's discharge from the ARNG with assignment to the United
States Army Reserve (USAR).  The request stated the reason as
unsatisfactory participant.  He requested the applicant be separated with a
general discharge.  The commander stated that the applicant was present for
July 1985 drill and had not showed up at any drills since then.  All
efforts to contact the applicant had not been successful because the
applicant had moved and did not leave a forwarding address with the post
office.

11.  A Record of Unexcused Absences and/or Unsatisfactory Service (Army
Regulation (AR) 135-91) (State Form 26-3) shows the applicant had a
cumulative total of 14 unexcused absences in 1985.

12.  The applicant was separated from the CTARNG, in pay grade E-2, on
4 December 1985, under the provisions of National Guard Regulation (NGR)
600-200, Paragraph 7-10r and Chapter 4, Section III, Army Regulation 135-
91, Unsatisfactory Participation, with more than 9 absences without leave
(AWOL).  He was issued a general discharge certificate and was transferred
to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training).

13.  The applicant was honorably discharged from the USAR Control Group, in
pay grade E-2, on 1 July 1986.

14.  In an advisory opinion, dated 3 October 2006, the Chief, Personnel
Division, Departments of the Army and the Air Force, National Guard Bureau
(NGB), stated that the documents provided show that the applicant was
discharged from the CTARNG for unsatisfactory participation in 1985 in
accordance with (IAW) regulatory guidance, which allows a general discharge
to be awarded.  In 1986, it appears he was awarded an honorable discharge
from St. Louis, for his IRR service time; however, no documentation or
regulatory guidance could be found that indicated the characterization of
his discharge has any relation to his ARNG service (a separate component
from the Reserve) and the general discharge he was awarded there.
Furthermore, the applicant did not provide exceptional justification to
warrant an exception to the 3 years limitation for submitting an
application, IAW Army Regulation 15-185.

15.  The NGB official, also stated that the applicant believes his record
is in error because his NGB Form 22 lists a general discharge even though
he has a 1986 discharge certificate providing him an honorable discharge.
Enclosed are four letters, stating that attendance records of the
applicant's unit show that he was absent from the scheduled UTAs or MUTAs
on 18 May, 17-18 August,
21-22 September, and 5-6 October 1985.  According to the letters, under
Army Regulation 135-91, the applicant was required to attend all scheduled
unit training assemblies and annual training periods.  The final letter
states that, unless the absences indicated in paragraph 1 are excused, the
applicant will have accrued 14 unexcused absences within a one year period.
 According to the letters, as the applicant was aware, if he accumulated
nine unexcused absences within one year, he could be declared an
unsatisfactory participant and he could be transferred to the IRR for the
balance of his obligation.

16.  The NGB official, further states that the letter from the Company
Commander for The Adjutant General, CTARNG, dated 13 November 1985,
requests that the applicant be discharged for unsatisfactory participation
– more than nine AWOLs. According to the Request for Orders, dated 13
November 1985, the applicant was provided a general discharge from the
CTARNG, effective 21 October 1985, transferred to the USAR Control Group,
St. Louis, unsatisfactory participation (9+ AWOLs), IAW NGR 600-200,
paragraph 7-10r and AR 135-91, paragraph 4-9b(1).

17. The NGB official, also stated that the applicant states he discovered
the alleged error on 1 February 2006.  Even though more than 3 years have
passed since the alleged error, he believes his application should be
considered because he never received the discharge until it was requested
by a Veteran Employment Representative on his behalf.  Army Regulation 135-
178 (Enlisted Administrative Separations, 10 July 2006) paragraph 9-6
states that the service of Soldiers discharged because of unsatisfactory
performance will be characterized as honorable or general (under honorable
conditions).  Chapter 2, section II, Army Regulation 15-185, specifies that
applications to the ABCMR should be within 3 years after an alleged error
or injustice is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered.  The
ABCMR may deny an untimely application.  The ABCMR may excuse untimely
filing in the interest of justice.  The NGB, Personnel Division,
recommended disapproval of the applicant's request due to insufficient
evidence.

18.  The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for
acknowledgement and/or rebuttal on 4 October 2006.  He did not respond.

19.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year
statute of limitations.

20.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable
discharge is a separation with honor.  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,
or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be
inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows the applicant was absent from scheduled UTA or MUTA
on 18 May, 17-18 August, 21-22 September, and 5-6 October 1985.  The
applicant was advised that he had accrued 14 unexcused absences within a
one year period.  The applicant's company commander requested the applicant
be discharged from the CTARNG for unsatisfactory – participation – more
than 9 AWOLs and issued a general discharge.  The applicant was separated
on 21 October 1985 and transferred to the USAR Control Group IAW with
regulatory guidance.

2.  The applicant contends he should have received an honorable discharge
from the CTARNG because he received an honorable discharge in 1986 from the
USAR.  However, the applicant was advised in writing that if he accumulated
9 unexcused absences within a one year period, he could be declared an
unsatisfactory participant and transferred to the IRR.  IAW AR 135-178, his
discharge because of unsatisfactory performance allowed for a general
discharge.

3.  The applicant's service at the time of his discharge from the CTARNG
was characterized as general.  His discharge from the USAR with an
honorable discharge indicates his character of service in the IRR and does
not merit him an upgrade of his CTARNG discharge.  In addition, the
applicant's chain of
command did not recommend him for an honorable discharge.  It is believed
that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service from the
CTARNG were both proper and equitable.

4.  Therefore, the applicant’s CTARNG records do not contain an error which
requires action by the Board.  The evidence of record confirms the
applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with
applicable regulations.  He was properly discharged from the CTARNG on
4 December 1985 and he has not shown otherwise.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request for an upgrade of his general discharge.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 4 December 1985, the date of his
separation from the CTARNG; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a
request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 3 December
1988.  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

__E_____  __S_____  _MJF___  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.




                                  _____John N. Sloan________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |ARAR20060002123                         |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061214                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |A70                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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