RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        21 December 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060008686


      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. John J. Wendland, Jr.         |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Peter B. Fisher               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas M. Ray                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann            |     |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, that his under other than honorable
conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable or general discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that when he entered the Army he had a
heroin addiction.  He also states, in effect, at the time his whole focus
stayed on drugs and the streets of Detroit, and he did not know what he was
doing.  The applicant also states, in effect, that he did not know the
effect his discharge would have on his life until after he left the
service.  The applicant concludes by stating he obtained treatment for his
drug problem, stopped using drugs, and has been working for 20 years in the
field of addiction as a certified addictions counselor and auricular
detoxification acupuncture specialist.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a self-authored letter, dated 27 March
2006; Michigan Veterans Foundation, Detroit Veterans Center, Detroit,
Michigan, letter, dated 17 April 2005 and 8 December 1998; Parkview
Counseling Centers, Detroit, Michigan, letter, dated 20 March 2006;
Acupuncture Treatment Concepts, Southfield, Michigan, letter, dated 15
December 1998; Diversified Treatment & Assessment Services, P.C., Detroit,
Michigan, letter, 1995;
46 Parkview Company Counseling Centers, Certificates of Completion, dated
from 6 February 2001 through 11 November 2004; 2 Michigan Certifications,
Board for Addiction Professionals, dated 29 July 2001 and 29 July 1999;
National Acupuncture Detoxification Association Certificate, dated 11 June
1997; State of Michigan, Department of Community Health, Center for
Substance Abuse Services Certificate, dated 2-10 May 1997; Catholic Youth
Organization, Certificate of Completion, dated 18 April 1997; 2
Neighborhood Service Organization, Certificates of Achievement, dated 10
May 1996 and 10 May 1990; Spirit of Detroit Certificate, dated 9 May 1996;
and Detroit Health Department, HIV/AIDS Programs, Certificate of
Completion, dated 21 November 1995.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 28 March 1972, the date of his discharge.  The
application submitted in this case is dated 13 April 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 service records contain a copy of a Standard
Form (SF) 89 (Report of Medical History), dated 16 March 1971, prepared for
the purpose of the applicant's induction.  This document shows, in
pertinent part, that in response to Item 20 (Have You Ever Had or Have You
Now:  Any Drug or Narcotic Habit) the applicant placed a checkmark in the
"Yes" column.  This document also shows, in pertinent part, in Item 39
(Physician's Summary and Elaboration of All Pertinent Data) that the
physician noted the applicant "used heroin in past not now (?)."

4.  The applicant's military service records contain a copy of SF 88
(Report of Medical Examination), dated 16 March 1971, prepared for the
purpose of the applicant's induction.  This document shows, in pertinent
part, that the captain serving as physician made a note in Item 74 (Summary
of Defects and Diagnoses) that referenced Item 42 (Clinical Evaluation -
Psychiatric), indicating "Med drug abuse."

5.  The applicant's military service records contain a copy of a SF 513
(Consultation Sheet) that shows the applicant was examined on 17 March 1971
concerning his drug use.  This document shows that the applicant indicated
he had used drugs in July 1970 for 1 or 2 weeks, discontinued the use of
narcotics until February 1971, and about 2 weeks [prior to induction]
discontinued the use of narcotics, again.  This document also shows that
the medical official noted, "no sign of addictive drug abuse" by the
applicant.

6.  The SF 88, dated 16 March 1971, also shows, in pertinent part, in Item
75 (Recommendations - Further Specialist Examinations Indicated) the entry
"DP Consult" and in Item 77 (Examinee) that the captain serving as
physician found the applicant qualified for induction into the Army.

7.  The applicant's military service records show that he was inducted into
the Army for 24 months on 17 March 1971.  On 24 March 1971, the applicant
was assigned to Company A, 13th Battalion, 4th Brigade, U.S. Army Armor
Center, Fort Knox, Kentucky, to attend basic combat training.  However, his
records show that he did not complete basic combat training.

8.  The applicant's military service records contain a DD Form 458 (Charge
Sheet) that shows, on 22 February 1972, the captain serving as the
Commander, Holding Company, U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility, Fort
Riley, Kansas, preferred charges against the applicant for being absent
without leave (AWOL) from on or about 2 June 1971 until on or about 4 June
1971 and AWOL from on or about 7 June 1971 until on or about 3 February
1972.

9.  On 4 February 1972, the applicant acknowledged with his signature that
he was advised that if he would participate in the Fort Riley Drug
Rehabilitation Program he would not be subjected to punitive action,
including an administrative discharge under other than honorable
conditions, solely for drug abuse.  This document also shows that the
applicant waived such amnesty and rehabilitation and indicated he did not
wish to participate in the program.

10.  The applicant's military service records contain a copy of a SF 88,
dated
7 February 1972, prepared for the purpose of the applicant's separation.
This document shows, in pertinent part, that the captain serving as
physician found the applicant qualified for separation.

11.  On 22 February 1972, the applicant requested a discharge for the good
of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of
chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200.  The applicant's legal counsel
certified that he had advised the applicant of the basis for the
contemplated trial by court-martial under circumstances which could lead to
a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, of the effects of the request for
discharge, and the rights available to the applicant.

12.  Subsequent to receiving legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily
submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In
his request, he confirmed that he had been afforded the opportunity to
consult with legal counsel, that he had been fully advised on the nature of
his rights, and acknowledged that no one had forced him into the request
for discharge.

13.  On 6 March 1972, the major general serving as Commanding General,
1st Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Riley, Kansas, approved the
applicant’s request and directed that he receive an Undesirable Discharge
Certificate.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 28 March 1972.

14.  The applicant's DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report
of Transfer or Discharge) shows that he was discharged for the good of the
service on 28 March 1972 in accordance with the provisions of chapter 10 of
Army Regulation 635-200.  The applicant's DD Form 214 confirms that at the
time of his discharge he had completed 3 months and 27 days of active
military service and had accrued 255 days lost under Title 10, United
States Code, Section 972.  This document also shows that the applicant was
discharged under conditions other than honorable and issued a DD Form 258A
(Undesirable Discharge Certificate).

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

16.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative
Separations), in effect at the time of the applicant's discharge, sets
forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member
who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized
punishment includes a punitive discharge may, submit a request for
discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred
and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an
honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than
honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

17.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable
discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits
provided by law.  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 clearly
inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of
the individual.

18.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general
discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When
authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is
satisfactory, but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable
discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued
only when the reason for the Soldier's separation specifically allows such
characterization.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends, in effect, that his under other than honorable
conditions discharge should be upgraded to an honorable or general
discharge because he had a heroin addiction and did not know what he was
doing when he went AWOL.  The applicant also contends, in effect, that he
did not know the effect his discharge would have on his life until after he
left the service.

2.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant admitted to the past
use of drugs prior to being inducted into the Army.  The evidence of record
also shows that the applicant was examined by medical officials prior to
his induction into the Army, the applicant stated he was no longer using
drugs, and he demonstrated no sign of addictive drug abuse.  As a result,
the applicant was found qualified for induction and he entered the Army.
Therefore, there is insufficient evidence of record, and the applicant
fails to provide evidence, to show that he had a heroin addiction at the
time he entered the Army and/or at the time he absented himself without
leave while a member of the U.S. Army.

3.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was charged with the
commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive
discharge. The evidence of record also shows that the applicant waived
amnesty and rehabilitation and indicated he did not wish to participate in
a local Drug Rehabilitation Program.  In addition, after consulting with
defense counsel, acknowledging he understood that he may be deprived of
many or all benefits as a result of an under other than honorable
conditions discharge, and admitting guilt to the offense for which he was
charged, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation
from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All requirements of law
and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully
protected throughout the separation process.  Therefore, the applicant
provided insufficient evidence to support his claim that he did not know
the effect his discharge would have on his life.

4.  The applicant further contends that because he was rehabilitated and
has worked as a counselor for 20 years in the field of addiction, his
discharge should be upgraded.  The personal and professional character
references the applicant provides concerning his post-service contributions
to society and the extensive number of substance abuse, patient counseling,
and training courses he has completed are noteworthy.  However, this good
post-service conduct by itself is not sufficient to overcome the
applicant's military record of indiscipline, or as a basis for upgrading
his discharge.  Therefore, these post-service factors are not sufficiently
mitigating to warrant the requested relief.

5.  The applicant’s record of service (which shows completion of only 3
months and 27 days of a 24-month commitment and 255 days lost under Title
10, United States Code, Section 972) did not meet the standards of
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Thus, the
applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge.  Furthermore, this
service was not satisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant is also not
entitled to a general discharge.

6.  The applicant’s request for separation under the provisions of chapter
10 of Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service to avoid trial by
court-martial was voluntary, administratively correct, and in compliance
with applicable regulations.  Records show the applicant was properly and
equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at that
time, all requirements of law and regulations were met, and the rights of
the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
Therefore, in view of all of the foregoing, the applicant’s discharge
accurately reflects his overall record of service.

7.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 28 March 1972; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
27 March 1975.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of
limitations; however, based on the available evidence, 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

___PBF__  ___TMR_  ___JCR _  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.




                            _____Peter B. Fisher_______
                                      CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060008686                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061221                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19720328                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, Chapter 10                  |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |For the Good of the Service             |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000.0000                           |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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