RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            07 SEPTEMBER 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20060002801


      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:

|     |Ms. Susan Powers                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jonathan Rost                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. David Haasenritter            |     |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 be upgraded to an
honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he was never promoted to the pay grade of E-
3; however, he did receive back pay after the mistake was found.  He states
that his name was on the promotion list for promotion to specialist and
that he never received the training he volunteered for which was Air
Assault School/Pathfinder/Ranger.  He states that he only received the
pathfinder training.  He states that he was wrongfully furnished an Article
15, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, for an accident, which was
not gross mishandling of Government Property.  He concludes by stating that
he was wrongfully discharged and that his punishment was excessive and
unjust.

3.  The applicant provides in support of his application, copies of
documents currently maintained in his Official Military Personnel File; an
undated Report of Medical Examination; a copy of his notification regarding
fraudulent enlistment; a copy of a letter dated 22 July 2004, from a Member
of Congress, addressed to him, regarding his desire to join the Missouri
Army National Guard; a letter from two of his friends attesting to his good
character; a letter that he wrote to his Member of Congress dated 5 July
2003; and a letter from an official of the Young Marines of Kansas City
attesting his good character.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 10 January 1985.  The application submitted in this case
is dated 12 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.  On 18 December 1982, he enlisted in the United States Army Reserve,
under the Delayed Entry Program, for 6 years, in the pay grade of E-1.  At
the time of his enlistment, he indicated that he was enlisting under the
United States Army Airborne Enlistment Option with assurance of attending
the infantry school course.

4.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 July 1983, for 3 years, in the
pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his training as an
infantryman.

5.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 28 January 1984, and to the
pay grade of E-3 on 28 April 1984.

6.  His awards include the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge
(Rifle M-16), the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge (Grenade),
the Army Service Ribbon, and the Parachutist Badge.

7.  On 4 October 1984, the applicant's commanding officer was notified that
he had submitted a urinalysis sample which was confirmed positive for
marijuana.

8.  The applicant's Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program
(ADAPCP) progress notes indicate that he was released from the program on
5 October 1984.  His counselor indicated that he was not progressing, and
his commanding officer indicated that his progress was unsatisfactory.

9.  Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on
10 October 1984, for damaging a United States Government property through
neglect.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay of 7 days pay, 14
days of restriction, and 14 days of extra duty.

10.  The applicant had NJP imposed against him again on 10 October 1984,
for wrongfully using marijuana on or about 20 August 1984.  His punishment
consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, a forfeiture of pay for 7
days, 14 days of restriction, and 14 days of extra duty.

11.  On 4 December 1984, the applicant was notified that he was being
recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
chapter 9.  His commanding officer cited alcohol or other drug abuse
rehabilitation failure as the basis for the recommendation for discharge.
He acknowledged receipt of the notification on 10 December 1984.

12.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on
20 December 1984, and he directed the issuance of a discharge under
honorable conditions.  According, on 10 January 1985, the applicant was
discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9,
based on drug abuse rehabilitation failure.  He had completed 1 year, 5
month and 13 days of net active service, and he was furnished a General
Discharge Certificate.

13.  A review of the available records fails to show that the applicant
ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his
discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 9 contains the authority and
outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or
other drug abuse.  A member who has been referred to ADAPCP for
alcohol/drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to
participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if
there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation
efforts are no longer practical.

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 and consideration has been
given to his overall record of service, which includes his awards and
decorations, and the documentation that he has submitted in behalf of his
application.  However, they are not supported by the evidence in the
available records.  His records indicate that he had NJPs imposed against
for testing positive for marijuana, and for damaging United States
Government Property.  He was released from ADAPCP for being a
rehabilitation failure.

4.  Additionally, the available records indicate that he was afforded the
education and training that contracted for at the beginning of his
training.  His punishment was not excessive or unjust as he was furnished a
discharge under honorable conditions and his service was not completely
honorable.  Considering his overall record of service and the nature of the
applicant's offenses, it does not appear that the general discharge that he
was furnished is too severe.

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

7.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 10 January 1985; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 9 January 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

____DH _  ___JR___  ___SP __  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.




                                  ______Susan Powers______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060002801                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060907                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19850110                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |CHAPTER 9/DRUG ABUSE – REHAB FAIL       |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES         1  680   |144.6900/DRUG ABUSE-REHAB FAILURE       |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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