MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:         

	BOARD DATE:            3 October 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999027468

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar 		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  The applicant requests are detailed on pages          14 through 17 of his attachment to his application.  Briefly, he requests:

•	A full hearing be conducted concerning the applicant’s involvement in the classified, illegal, and unsanctioned Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Operations Watchtower and Orwell; and a full hearing concerning the murder of his wife, for which he was convicted
•	That his records show that he was special forces qualified (light weapons and combat engineer), infantry qualified, and airborne qualified
•	That his records show that he was awarded the Aviation Badge (flight wings and crewman-rotary wing aircraft), and Pathfinder Badge
•	That his records show that he was awarded the Silver Star, Bronze Star, two awards of the Air Medal, six awards of the Army Commendation Medal, and the Combat Infantryman Badge, for his involvement in classified operations
•	That his records show he served in overseas area(s)
•	That in effect, his general discharge be upgraded to honorable, and that any information concerning his conviction be expunged from his records
•	That his records be corrected to contain a statement showing that the applicant had been involved in a classified duty assignment, thereby explaining the lack of information contained in his military personnel records jacket
•	That arms room sign in sheets, in the hands of the Massachusetts District Attorney, be obtained and corrected to show that a former fellow soldier never signed a shotgun into the arms room, and that information which incriminates that fellow soldier be made known to determine if criminal charges for murder should be brought against him  
•	That records show that the applicant participated in Operations Watchtower and Orwell, and if no records are available to indicate this, then records be so created
•	That the applicant be reinstated in the Army Special Forces with all due back pay and allowances, and promotion to the rank of not less than Master Sergeant, and with the restoration of all rights, privileges, and property
•	That the record of nonjudicial punishment that the applicant received be expunged from his records

APPLICANT STATES:  

That he was a member of Operation Watchtower, an illegal drug trafficking operation, and Operation Orwell, an illegal surveillance operation, and in late 1989 or early 1990, he brought the matter to the attention of the Army Special Forces Command Inspector General (IG), who refused to conduct an investigation.  He states that a Colonel, a former special forces officer and a former member of the IG office, verified the existence of these operations, and that the family of another Colonel, who acted as the middle man in bringing the diaries of his deceased wife to the CIA, swore that Colonel was involved in both operations. 

The applicant states that a weapons sign in sheet was altered to give a former fellow soldier the alibi he needed to escape punishment for the murder of the applicant’s wife (page 3, subparagraph (B) of the applicant’s attachment to his application).

The applicant states that military intelligence records should exist on the two operations, should reflect that the above referenced Colonel received the diaries of his deceased wife following her murder on 30 January 1979, and that he turned those diaries over to the CIA.  The applicant states that he did not murder his wife, that his records had been altered to delete any references to the two operations, that he was promoted well ahead of his peers, and received decorations now missing from his files (pages 3 and 4, subparagraph (C)).   

The applicant provides statements concerning the background of his wife’s murder, citing a false confession, illegal search, and blackmail by another Army Colonel of the local district attorney (page 4).  He states that the case had been the focus of media coverage, to include a documentary which exonerated the applicant (pages 4 and 5).  

Beginning on page 5, and concluding on page 11, the applicant provides a chronological sequence of supposed events which he states concerns his case.  These events purport to show the beginning of Operations Watchtower and Orwell, their commanders, the applicant’s involvement, shortly after his arrival at Fort Devens, Massachusetts, threats to the applicant and his wife (now deceased), and the murder of his wife, to include the charges by a fellow soldier that the applicant had hired him to murder the applicant’s wife.  Those supposed events show illegal surveillance, illegal searches and violation of civil rights, murder, suicide, and suspicious deaths of high ranking Army officers (Colonels), and cover ups.

Beginning at the bottom of page 11 of his attachment to his request, the applicant poses various questions concerning the two operations, and the events that occurred before and after his wife’s murder.  These questions end at the bottom of page 13, the last question being whether this Board has the integrity to investigate and correct the injustice done to him and to get to the bottom of his case.

The applicant submits an affidavit in which he states that in 1995 he first became aware that the Parachute Badge was not a part of his records, and that he spoke with the relative of a former Army Colonel, with whom he served on illegal operations, who confirmed that the Army had initially denied that the Colonel had been in the Army.  He states that he then began to seriously review his record, discovering missing information and gaps in his records, and that his records had been altered.  He states that on 6 June 1996, a retired Army Colonel, the former special forces officer mentioned above, along with a retired Chief Warrant Officer, formerly of the Criminal Investigation Division (CID), conducted an investigation, which showed that his records had been altered to put distance between himself and the operations that he and a Colonel were involved in.    

In a 13 September 1999 letter to this Board (ATTACHED), the applicant provided a professed 22 June 1996 supplemental affidavit from a retired Army Colonel, a copy of his 5 May 1999 DD Form 215, a copy of an alleged declaration from the former director of the CIA, allegedly witnessed by a former President of the United States, a copy of a 6 May 1999 letter from the Staff Judge Advocate of the Army Special Forces Command, and a copy of a letter from the Director, Torts Branch, Civil Division of the Department of Justice referring the applicant’s claim to the General Counsel of the CIA.

•	The retired Army Colonel, a former special forces officer, stated that during the course of a five year systematic investigation described in his 6 June 1996 affidavit, he and a CID retired warrant officer discovered that certain military records of the affidavit had been sterilized to conceal the applicant’s involvement in Operations Watchtower and Orwell.  He stated that the applicant had been decorated concerning the classified operations, and following Watchtower he served in a variety of classified operations in Latin America, Africa, and Pakistan, under the general project referred to as “SANDMAN,” a CIA project dealing with assassinations.  The applicant was involved in several assassinations, and received a number of decorations in 1975 and 1976.  He stated that the applicant was special forces qualified, through what old soldiers refer to as being “Paper Flash Qualified,” in that the applicant graduated from MOS 11B1S (light weapons specialist) and 12B1S (combat engineer) by mail.  He stated that the applicant served on at least three operational detachment alpha [teams].  He stated that special forces soldiers that they interviewed recalled that the applicant graduated from a surreptitious entry course, small boat insertion course, NBC course, advanced land navigation course, jump master school (senior parachute badge, or master parachute badge), combat diver course (scuba badge), accounting course, unit deployment course, rotary wing school (aviation badge), and others.  He called attention to the fact of the applicant’s letter of commendation which resulted from his drafting a unit movement plan, and although there was nothing in the applicant’s records to show that he was ever trained to prepare such a plan, the interviews they conducted found that the applicant underwent such training.  He stated that the applicant was identified as being sniper trained, that the applicant served as both a door gunner and crew chief of a helicopter in the Watchtower operation, and that he received on the job training in the aviation field, while assigned to Fort Bragg.  He stated that in conversations with the former director of the CIA he learned that the applicant had been awarded decorations for his involvement in Watchtower and Sandman, but that the applicant’s records had been sterilized.  The sterilization had been so thorough that it deleted the National Defense Service Medal from his records.  He stated that the CIA director had allowed a waiver in order for the applicant to receive the decorations.  He stated that from his involvement in the CIA program MK-ULTRA (Manufacturing Killers Utilizing Lethal Tradecraft Requiring Assassination) he was aware that a waiver could be given.
•	In the alleged declaration from the former head of the CIA, that person was supposedly informed by his predecessor of narcotics trafficking in Latin America to finance Operation Red Mist and Operation Sandman.  He stated that his predecessor informed him that he had prepositioned more than one million pounds of cocaine in Panama between 1 December 1975 and             1 April 1976, with the aid of General Noriega.  He stated that a mutual friend, an Army Colonel, was used to field the operations.  The Colonel was introduced to them by General Joseph W. Stillwell in late 1945.  The Colonel brought to the anti-communist effort a direct connection to his long time friend, Vito Genovese, head of gambling and narcotics for the controlling Mafia family in New York, to which the Colonel was a member.  He went on to say that after discussions with the Colonel, he decided to bring the cocaine into the Mena, Arkansas airport, and was aided in this project by the high ranking state officials and an assistant United States Attorney.  Additionally, other prominent personnel were involved, and the arrival of the cocaine into the Mena airport went undetected through the efforts of the National Security Agency and the Army Security Agency.  He stated that the course of the democratic struggle for Latin American countries had begun to swing in our (the United States) direction because of the two operations.  He commended those involved.
•	In a 6 May 1999 letter the Staff Judge Advocate of the Army Special Forces Command informed the applicant’s lawyer that the applicant’s request for an investigation under the provisions of Article 138, Uniform Code of Military Justice, could not be accommodated, and was returned without action.     

In the above referenced 6 June 1996 affidavit by the retired Army Colonel, a former special forces officer, that person in an 18 page, 54 paragraph document, provides his theories and analysis concerning the murder of the applicant’s wife, based on an investigation conducted by him and a retired warrant officer, in which he stated that they interviewed nearly two hundred witnesses.  He provided a list of persons, some of which were prominent government employees, whom they interviewed.  He concluded that the applicant did not murder his wife, but that another soldier murdered her, and that soldier’s involvement was concealed as part of an Army cover up concerning Operation Watchtower.

This person submits numerous exhibits, including correspondence between himself and the applicant; documents, magazine articles, and newspaper articles, purported to show the government’s involvement in drug trafficking and drug smuggling operations involving the CIA, high ranking government officials, foreign officials, the Mafia, and so forth.

The applicant himself submits 43 exhibits to support and verify the affidavit of the above mentioned individual.  Those exhibits include what appears to be the record of trial of both the applicant and the other soldier convicted of the murder of the applicant’s wife, the applicant’s affidavits, affidavits by other persons and witness statements (apparently not part of the record of trial), a copy of a letter from the father of the applicant’s deceased wife, and a copy of a 30 November 1978 statement made by the soldier convicted of the murder, in which he attests that he had lied in implicating the applicant concerning the larceny of a rope.  The exhibits included a copy of his appeal of his nonjudicial punishment administered on 5 January 1979, and the notification to him that his appeal had been denied.  They included newspaper articles concerning the Ayer Police Department, post trial records, and correspondence and newspaper articles concerning the applicant’s case and Operation Watchtower.
  
COUNSEL CONTENDS:  In response to a 26 May 1999 letter from this agency requesting that the applicant sign a DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), informing counsel that the applicant had to complete item 11 of that form since it had been more than 3 years since his discharge, and informing counsel that this Board is not an investigative body and would address only matters that pertain to the correction of the applicant’s records; counsel states that the applicant met the statute of limitations as shown by the Army issuing a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) on 5 May 1999.  He further contends that the applicant did not know until mid-1997 of missing records due to concealment of that matter by the Army.  Counsel states that this Board has the authority to look at all records concerning the applicant’s case, to include his personnel records, the Army arms room records, in the custody of the office of the Middlesex County (Massachusetts) district attorney, and Army military intelligence records related to the classified operations.  Counsel contends that this Board has a duty to investigate this matter, and cites a court case in which he states that the Court of Claims found that the ABCMR retained an investigatory function.  Counsel states, in effect, that this Board must investigate this case in order to get to the truth of the matter.  Counsel states that there is a need for a hearing in this case, in order to reconstruct the military intelligence records that were either lost, or deliberately destroyed to hide the drug trafficking operation that can be proven to have taken place.  A hearing is required in order to substantiate the truth of the applicant’s statements, and to verify the facts.  He states that the applicant retains records, photographs, affidavits, and depositions to prove his point.  Counsel states that any adverse finding by this Board would not pass constitutional muster due to the missing records and that without those records the Board would have a difficult time denying the applicant’s request.  A hearing is needed to clearly review the evidence.  Counsel questions whether this Board can impartially review this case if it would embarrass the United States government by correcting the applicant’s records.  He states that both the Army IG and The Staff Judge Advocate have either failed to conduct a full investigation or stated that they did not have jurisdiction to review the matter which involved the classified operations (COPY OF COUNSEL’S STATEMENT ATTACHED).  

PURPOSE:  To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant enlisted in the Army for three years on 5 May 1975.  He was        17 years old.  His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows that he was an Armor/Unit Supply Specialist, MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) 76Y1P, and that he was discharged on 5 November 1976 in the rank of Private First Class at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  He was discharged because of hardship reasons.  His DD Form 214 shows that he was awarded the Marksman Badge M-16, and the Parachute Badge.  He signed and requested a copy of his DD Form 214.

On 22 January 1977 the applicant requested a waiver in order to reenlist in the Army.  He received support in the form of a statement from a Captain at Fort Bragg, who stated that the applicant was assigned to his unit as an armorer from 18 September 1975 to 5 November 1976, and that his overall job performance, conduct, and efficiency were excellent.  His request was approved.  He enlisted in the Army for four years on 22 August 1977.  The applicant was assigned to Fort Lee, Virginia, completed the Stock Control Supplyman Course, and in October 1977 was assigned to Service Company of the 10th Special Forces Group at Fort Devens as a stock control specialist.  Two evaluation reports, one signed on 14 July 1978, and the other on 1 November 1978, show that he was a stock control specialist and a supply sergeant, respectively, and that his MOS was 76Y1P.  On 13 November 1978 the applicant received a letter of commendation for his outstanding performance of duty.

On 5 January 1979 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under       Article 15, UCMJ, for selling military property without proper authority on two occasions, and for unlawfully entering a building with the intent to commit larceny.  He was reduced to pay grade E-1, required to forfeit $209.00 per month for two months, placed on 45 days extra duty and 45 days restriction.  The record of this punishment shows that he was unable to appeal this punishment because he was confined at the Middlesex House of Correction in Billerica, Massachusetts.

On 1 May 1979 the applicant was convicted in the Superior Court for the County of Middlesex in Massachusetts for assaulting and beating his wife with the intent to kill and murder her, and by such assault and beating did kill and murder her.
Evaluation reports dated in March and in July 1979 show that the applicant was evaluated in his Primary MOS of 76P1P.

A 4 March 1980 report for suspension of favorable personnel actions (“flagging action”) shows that the applicant was convicted of first degree murder on           29 February 1980 and sentenced to life imprisonment. 

On 8 March 1980 the applicant’s commanding officer notified the applicant that he was initiating action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12, because of his conviction by a civil court for first degree murder and a sentence to imprisonment for life.

On 4 April 1980 the applicant consulted with counsel, stated that he had been advised of the basis for the contemplated action, its effects, of the rights available to him, and the effect of any action taken by him in waiving his rights.  He requested consideration of his case by a board of officers, and requested personal appearance before a board of officers.  He declined to submit statements in his own behalf.  He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the under other than honorable conditions discharge that he might receive.  

On 10 April 1980 the applicant’s commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged.  On 1 May 1980 a board of officers was appointed to determine whether the applicant should be discharged.  
The board met on 23 May 1980.  The applicant was incarcerated in a civilian prison and was not present during the proceedings.  He was represented by counsel.  The board heard testimony from the Chief of the Ayer (Massachusetts) Police Department and an Army CID agent who were involved in the investigation of the murder of the applicant’s wife, and heard testimony from a special forces first sergeant.  That noncomissioned officer (NCO) testified that the applicant was not a special forces soldier, but was a supply sergeant for the unit.  The applicant’s enlisted evaluation reports, letter of commendation, diploma from a supplyman course, diploma from a stock control supplyman course, and his DD Form 214 from his first tour of service, were provided the board.  The applicant’s statement was provided to the board.  In his statement, the applicant summarized his first tour of duty in the Army, stating that he was trained as a unit supply clerk at Fort Ord, California, completed airborne training, and was assigned to Fort Bragg as an armorer.  He stated that he was an outstanding soldier, but because of his father’s health, requested and received a hardship discharge.  He reenlisted in August 1977, completed training as a stock control specialist at Fort Lee, Virginia, where he met and married his late wife, and arrived at Fort Devens in October 1977.  He stated that he and another soldier were involved in certain illegal activities, for which he received nonjudicial punishment.  He stated that his wife began keeping a diary of all illegal activities at Fort Devens, and had made that fact known to another soldier; consequently, she was murdered.  He stated that two other soldiers could verify that his wife kept such a diary.  He also stated that he and his wife received threatening phone calls, which were made known to the post commander.  He stated that he was a model soldier and in effect, an exemplary supply sergeant.

The board found that the applicant was not desirable for further retention in the Army because of his civilian conviction and recommended that he be discharged because of misconduct with a general discharge.

In a 7 July 1980 letter to the commander of the Army Military Personnel Center, the Fort Devens commander stated that the applicant had been convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.  He stated that the crime was a murder-for-hire of his wife, and that the details were set forth in an attached record of the board proceedings.  He stated that the board recommended that the applicant be discharged with a general discharge.  The Fort Devens commander stated that he considered that incredible recommendation to be a travesty and an embarrassment to the Army totally unsupported by the record, but he had no authority to overrule the recommendation.  He recommended that the applicant be immediately discharged under other than honorable conditions, despite the applicant’s notice of appeal.

On 24 September 1980 the recommendation was disapproved.  The Military Personnel Center recommended that the applicant be reassigned to the nearest personnel confinement facility pending the outcome of his appeal. 

On 26 October 1980 the applicant was assigned from Fort Devens to the Personnel Control Facility at Fort Dix, New Jersey.

In a 3 September 1982 letter, the commander of Company A of the Army Personnel Control Facility at Fort Dix, indicated that appellate action in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts on 23 August 1982 affirmed the applicant’s conviction.

On 28 September 1982 the separation authority at Fort Dix approved the findings and recommendation of the board of officers.  He directed that the applicant be discharged and issued a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 15 October 1982.  He had 1 year, 5 months, and 21 days of service, and 3 years, 8 months, and 2 days of lost time. 

On 24 September 1991, under the auspices of the Freedom of Information Act, the applicant requested the records of certain deceased Army soldiers, to include four Colonels, one Sergeant, and one Chief Warrant Officer.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct, and states in pertinent part, that soldiers are subject to separation for commission of a serious military or civil offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge would be authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts Martial (MCM).  A under other than honorable conditions certificate is normally appropriate for a member discharged for misconduct.

Army Regulation 600-8-22, provides, in pertinent part, that the Silver Star is awarded for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States while engaged in operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force, or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.

The Bronze Star Medal is awarded to any soldier who distinguished himself by heroic or meritorious achievement or service, in connection with military operations against an armed enemy.

The Air Medal is awarded to any soldier who distinguished himself by meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight.

The Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) is awarded to infantry officers and to enlisted and warrant officer persons who have an infantry MOS.  They must have served in active ground combat while assigned or attached to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental or smaller size.  There are basically three requirements for award of the CIB.  The soldier must be an infantryman satisfactorily performing infantry duties, he must be assigned to an infantry unit during such time as the unit is engaged in active ground combat, and he must actively participate in such ground combat.  Specific requirements state, in effect, that an Army enlisted soldier must have an infantry or special forces specialty, satisfactorily performed duty while assigned or attached as a member of an infantry, ranger or special forces unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size during any period such unit was engaged in active ground combat.  Eligibility for special forces personnel (less the special forces medical sergeant) accrues from 20 December 1989.  Retroactive awards for special forces personnel are not authorized.  A recipient must be personally present and under hostile fire while serving in an assigned infantry or special forces primary duty, in a unit actively engaged in ground combat with the enemy.

The Army Aviator Badge is awarded for satisfactory completion of prescribed training and proficiency tests leading to an aeronautical rating of Army Aviator.  It is awarded by the Commander of the Army Aviation Center and Fort Rucker.
The Pathfinder Badge is awarded by the Commandant of the Army Infantry School for successful completion of the Pathfinder Course.

Army Regulation 600-8-22  provides, in pertinent part, that the Army Commendation Medal is awarded for heroism and for meritorious achievement or service. 

Army Regulation 600-200 governs award of MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) and initial designation of primary and secondary MOS, and states in pertinent part that occupational qualification for MOS award may be attained through satisfactory completion of advanced individual training, service school training, formal on-the-job training, or on the basis of civilian education or work experience.  All MOS awards will be announced by publication of special orders as appropriate.

Army Regulation 611-201, then in effect, provides the enlisted MOS classification structure of the Army.  A special qualification identifier, “S” is used to identify positions which require assignment of personnel who have completed Special Forces specialist MOS training conducted by the US Army Institute for Military Assistance (USAIMA) or who have completed similar training or acquired qualifying experience which, in the judgment of the Commandant, USAIMA, is equivalent to training received in the Special Forces Qualification Course.
Army Regulation 27-10 provides policy for the administration of military justice.  Chapter 3 provides that nonjudicial punishment is appropriate in all cases involving minor offenses in which nonpunitive measures are considered inadequate or inappropriate.  It is a tool available to commanders to correct, educate and reform offenders whom the commander determines cannot benefit from less stringent measures; to preserve a member's record of service from unnecessary stigma by record of court-martial conviction; and to further military efficiency by disposing of minor offenses in a manner requiring fewer resources than trial by court-martial.  The imposing commander is not bound by the formal courts-martial rules of evidence and may consider any matter, including unsworn statements the commander reasonably believes to be relevant to the case.  Furthermore, whether to impose punishment and the nature of the punishment are the sole decisions of the imposing commander.

Army Regulation 15-185 prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).  That regulation states, in pertinent part, that the ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record.  It is not an investigative body.  The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence or opinions.  The ABCMR’s jurisdiction under 10 U.S.C. 1552 extends to any military record of the DA.  It is the nature of the record and the status of the applicant that define the ABCMR’s jurisdiction.  The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.  Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR.  The Director of the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires.  

Based on the foregoing, applicant’s claim is barred under the three-year statute of limitations set forth in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b) and Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 7, ABCMR.  Under the statute of limitations test set forth by the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158 (D.D.C. 1992), applicant has failed to present a sound reason for waiving the three-year statute of limitations; and, the Board’s consideration of the merits reveals that there is no injustice, inequity, compelling circumstance, likelihood of relief, or potential relief.  

DISCUSSION:  The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 15 October 1982, the date of his discharge.  The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 15 October 1985.

The application is dated 14 June 1999 and the applicant has not explained or otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated by competent evidence that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to apply within the time allotted.

DETERMINATION:  The subject application was not submitted within the time required.  The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___jns___  ___rjw__  ___rtd___  CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION

    Carl W. S. Chun
    Director, Army Board for Correction
	                of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999027468	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001003	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  1021	142.00	
2.	110.03	
3.	107.00	
4.	126.04	
5.	128.00	
6.	134.00