RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        28 June 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060017114


      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.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. William F. Crain              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Dean A. Camarella             |     |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 general, under honorable
conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was discharged due to depression
and drug abuse, which resulted from something that happened while he was on
active duty.  He states he was planning a 30 year career and was a good
Soldier.  He states he was the honor graduate of his Basic Noncommissioned
Officer Course (BNCOC) and was good at what he did.  He claims that
depression slowly took its toll and he started using drugs and stopped
caring about everything.  He was discharged for drug abuse, which never
would have happened if not for the events of 12 December 1985, which he
does not define.  He states his service connected disability is 50 percent
so he feels he should have his discharge changed to an HD because of the
circumstances resulting from something that happened while he was in the
service; however, he again fails to define what that something is.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement, his separation
document (DD Form 214) and copies of service records in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 31 March 1987, the date of his discharge.  The application
submitted in this case was received 10 December 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 record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 2 September 1977, and he was trained in and awarded
military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).

4.  The applicant's Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) shows, in
Item 18 (Appointments and Reductions), that he was promoted to sergeant
(SGT) on 5 October 1981, and that this is the highest rank he attained
while serving on active duty.  It also shows he was reduced to specialist
(SPC) on 8 January 1987 and to private first class (PFC) on 21 January
1987.  Item 9 (Awards, Decorations & Campaigns) shows he earned the
following awards during his active duty tenure:  Army Service Ribbon (ASR);
Army Achievement Medal (AAM); Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM) 3rd Award;
Overseas Service Ribbon (OSR); Noncommissioned Officer Professional
Development Ribbon (NCOPDR) Numeral 2; Expert Infantryman Badge (EIB);
Parachutist Badge; and Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle
Bar. His record documents no acts of or awards for valor.

5.  The applicant's disciplinary history includes his acceptance of non-
judicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code
of Military Justice (UCMJ) on three separate occasions, a Bar to
Reenlistment, and a record of dishonored checks.

6.  On 18 March 1985, the applicant accepted NJP for failing to go to his
appointed place of duty at the time prescribed.  His punishment for this
offense was 14 days of restriction and extra duty.

7.  On 8 January 1987, the applicant accepted NJP for wrongfully using
cocaine. His punishment for this offense was a reduction to SPC, forfeiture
of $494.00, and 45 days of restriction and extra duty.

8.  On 21 January 1987, the applicant accepted NJP for disobeying a lawful
order from a commissioned officer and for breaking restriction.  His
punishment for these offenses was a reduction to PFC, forfeiture of $204.00
and 14 days of extra duty (suspended).

9.  On 21 January 1987, the unit commander prepared a Bar to Reenlistment
Certificate (DA Form 4126-R) on the applicant.  The unit commander cited
the applicant's receipt of an Article 15 for using cocaine and his writing
six dishonored checks between 1 and 23 June 1986, as reasons supporting the
action.  On 30 January 1987, the approval authority approved the Bar to
Reenlistment on the applicant.

10.  On 13 March 1987, the unit commander notified the applicant that he
was recommending the applicant's separation under the provisions of
paragraph
14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200, which could result in his being discharged
from the Army, and he advised the applicant of his rights in connection
with this action.
11.  On 13 March 1987, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was
advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its
effects, of the rights available to him, and the effect of any action taken
by him to waive those rights.  Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant
waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, his right to
personal appearance before a board of officers, his right to representation
by counsel, and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

12.  On 17 March 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant's
discharge under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-
200, by reason of Misconduct (Commission of a Serious Offense-Drug Abuse),
and he directed the applicant receive a GD.  On 31 March 1987, the
applicant was discharged accordingly after completing a total of 9 years
and 5 months of active military service.

13.  There is no indication that the applicant petitioned 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 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative
Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted
personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes 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.

15.  Paragraph 14-12c(2) of the enlisted separations regulation provides
guidance on separation processing based on the abuse of illegal drugs,
which constitutes serious misconduct.  It states, in pertinent part, that
all Soldiers against whom charges will not be referred to a court-martial
authorized to impose a punitive discharge or against whom separation will
not be initiated under the provisions of chapter 9 or Section II, chapter
14 of this regulation, will be processed for separation under this
provision of the regulation.  "Processed for separation" means that
separation action will be initiated and processed through the chain of
command to the separation authority for appropriate action.  A discharge
under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) is normally appropriate for a
Soldier discharged under this chapter.  However, the separation authority
may direct a GD if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record.  A
characterization of service as honorable is not authorized unless the
Soldier's record is otherwise so meritorious that any other
characterization clearly would be inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his discharge should be upgraded to an
HD based on his overall record of service and because his discharge was the
result of something that happened to him while he was serving on active
duty was carefully considered.  However, this factor is not sufficiently
mitigating to support granting the requested relief.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant's separation processing
was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All
requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the
applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  By
regulation an UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate for
members separating under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-
200; however, the commander may issue a GD when it is merited by the
Soldier's overall record of service, which is what occurred in this case.
An HD is not authorized unless the commander determines a Soldier's record
is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization clearly would
be inappropriate.

4.  In this case, the applicant's use of illegal drugs clearly diminished
the overall quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable
discharge, and the GD he received is an accurate reflection of his overall
record of service.  There is no evidence that would suggest his record of
service is so meritorious that it would have been inappropriate for him to
receive anything other than an HD.  This, it would not be appropriate or
serve the interest or equity to upgrade his discharge at this time.

5.  The applicant's claim that something happened to him while he was
serving which caused him to be depressed and use illegal drugs was also
considered.  However, absent any explanation of a specific event that would
have been so traumatic that it would explain or mitigate his use of illegal
drugs, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support an upgrade of
his discharge based on this factor.

6.  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.

7.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 31 March 1987, the date of his
discharge.  Therefore, the time for him to file a request for correction of
any error or injustice expired on 30 March 1990.  He failed to 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

___JTM__  __WFC _  __DAC __  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 T. Meixell______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060017114                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/06/28                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1987/03/31                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 C14                          |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Misconduct - Drug Abuse                 |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mirtano                             |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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