RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            07 September 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20060004460


      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. Jessie B. Strickland          |     |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
honorable and that the narrative reason for separation, separation
authority, separation code and reenlistment code be removed from his report
of separation (DD Form 214).

2.  The applicant states that it has been almost 20 years since his
discharge and he feels that he served his country honorably.  He further
states that he deserves this upgrade for better job opportunities and to
have some pride.  He also states that he should not have his discharge
hanging over his head forever.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged  injustice which
occurred on 17 October 1986.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 20 March 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 was born on 6 November 1955 and enlisted in the Regular
Army on 3 January 1978 for a period of 3 years.  He completed his basic
combat training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and his advanced individual
training (AIT) as a material storage and handling specialist at Fort Lee,
Virginia.

4.  Upon completion of his AIT he was transferred to Germany in July 1978.
He reenlisted on 3 December 1979 and on 8 July 1980, he failed to achieve
course standards for the Primary Leadership Course and was relieved from
the class.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 27 November 1980.

5.  He completed his tour in Germany in January 1980 and was transferred to
Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  He reenlisted on 14 October 1982 for a period
of 3 years and remained at Fort Bragg.

6.  He reenlisted on 8 May 1985 and was transferred back to Germany on
22 July 1985.  He self-referred himself to the Alcohol Drug Abuse
Prevention Control Program (ADAPCP) for alcohol abuse on 17 October 1985.
He was enrolled in the Track II inpatient program on 4 November 1985.

7.  On 10 April 1986, while again attending the Primary Leadership
Development Course (PLDC), nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against
him for failure to go to his place of duty (apparently alcohol related).
His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-4 and 45 days
of extra duty.  He was also released from the PLDC for disciplinary
reasons.

8.  On 24 July 1986, the clinical director of the ADAPCP opined that the
applicant’s potential for successful rehabilitation was poor due to his
lack of motivation and his involvement in an alcohol related incident which
led to his receiving NJP.   He underwent a mental status evaluation on 18
August 1986 and was deemed to be mentally responsible.

9.  On 10 September 1986, the applicant was notified by his commander that
he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 9 for alcohol abuse – rehabilitation failure.

10.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived all of his rights,
elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf and waived treatment in
a Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

11.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on
23 September 1986 and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge
Certificate.

12.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 17
October 1986, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9,
for alcohol abuse – rehabilitation failure.  He had served 8 years, 9
months and 14 days of active service.

13.  There is no indication in the available records to show that he 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 of that regulation contains
the authority and outlines the procedures for discharging individuals
because of alcohol and/or drug abuse.  A member may be separated because of
inability or refusal to participate in, or successfully complete a
rehabilitation program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army
service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical.
Characterization of service will be determined solely by the soldier’s
military record that includes the soldier’s behavior and performance during
the current enlistment.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor
and is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has
met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty.  A general
discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  It is
issued to soldiers whose military record is satisfactory but not
sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  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.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in
accordance with applicable regulations with no evidence of any violations
of the applicant’s rights.  Accordingly, he was given the proper narrative
reason for his separation and he has provided no evidence to justify an
upgrade of his discharge.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted; however, his overall
record of service does not constitute fully honorable service.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 17 October 1986; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 16 October 1989.  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                 |AR20060004460                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060907                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(GD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1986/10/17                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200/CH9 . . . . .                 |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |ALCOHOL REHAB FAIL                      |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES         1.       |562/A45.00                              |
|144.4500                |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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