RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        12 September 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060002144


      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. Allen Raub                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Linda Barker                  |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Qawiy Sabree                  |     |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 under honorable conditions
discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states that he requested to be discharged because of his
mood swings.  He states he was unable to cope any longer.

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

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

Counsel states, in effect, that the evidence of record substantially
supports the applicant’s contentions.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 26 April 1985.  The application submitted in this case is dated
28 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 applicant initially enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 June 1973.
He completed basic combat training at Fort Knox, Kentucky and was
reassigned to Fort Dix, New Jersey for advanced individual training (AIT).
Upon successful completion of AIT, he was awarded 64C (Motor Transport
Operator).

4.  The applicant was honorably discharged from active duty on 26 April
1976 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 27 April
1976 and continued to serve on active duty through two reenlistments.

5.  He was promoted to staff sergeant on 1 December 1983.

6.  On 26 January 1985, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being found drunk while on
duty as a squad leader.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to pay
grade E-5, a forfeiture of $50 pay per month for 2 months and 45 days extra
duty.

7.  On 27 February 1985, the unit commander notified the applicant of
separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
paragraph 14-12 for commission of a serious offense - abuse of illegal
drugs.  The unit commander stated the applicant was drunk in public, drunk
on duty, and had received a positive urinalysis.

8.  On 27 February 1985, the applicant was advised of his rights and
acknowledged notification of separation action.  He consulted with counsel,
requested consideration of his case by a board of officers, and did not
submit statements in his own behalf.  He later waived consideration of his
case by a board of officers.

9.  On 23 April 1985, the separation authority approved the recommendation
for discharge and directed that the applicant be issued a General Discharge
Certificate.

10.  The applicant was discharged on 26 April 1985 under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c for misconduct – abuse of illegal
drugs.  He completed 6 months and 2 days on his current enlistment and 11
years, 3 months, and 28 months total active military service.

11.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant applied to
the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

12.  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.

13.  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.  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 applicant’s service record shows he received one Article 15 for
being found drunk on duty.  As a result, his service did not meet the
standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty to warrant an
upgrade to honorable.

3.  The applicant's contentions were noted.  However, there is no evidence
submitted or evidence of record which shows the actions taken in this case
were in error or unjust.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 26 April 1985; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 25 April 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

AR______  LB______  QS______  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.




                                  Allen Raub____________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060002144                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060912                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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