MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           14 January 1999   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR98-013189

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Member	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		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 to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	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:  In effect, that his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he had a difficult drinking problem; that his drinking problem was stress related; that his drinking problem led to his misconduct; that he tried to quit drinking; and that the Army did not offer him any help until he had committed the misconduct and was about to be discharged.

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

On 2 March 1993 the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years.  He enlisted for the US Army Training of Choice Enlistment Option.  He successfully completed one station unit training (OSUT) at Fort McClellan, Alabama.  Upon completion of OSUT he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 54B (Chemical Operations Specialist), and was assigned overseas to Korea for his first permanent duty station.

The applicant’s record documents that the highest permanent rank he held on active duty was specialist/E-4 and that he received the National Defense Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon and the Overseas Service Ribbon.  The record contains no documented acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

On 14 February 1995 the applicant received a general officer letter of reprimand for driving under the influence of alcohol.  On 10 March 1995, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for making a false official statement, operating a vehicle while drunk, and wrongfully falsely altering a military identification card.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in grade to private/E-2, and 30 days restriction and extra duty.  On 1 May 1995 he accepted another NJP for willfully damaging government property, being drunk and disorderly, and wrongfully and unlawfully consuming intoxicating beverages while underage.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in rank to private/E-1 and 14 days extra duty and restriction.

On 1 August 1995 the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action under the provisions of paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for misconduct with a GD.  The applicant acknowledged notification, declined legal counsel, and elected not to submit a statement in his behalf.

On 4 August 1995 the appropriate authority approved the separation action with a GD.  Accordingly, on 30 August 1995 the applicant was discharged after completing 2 years, 5 months, and 29 days of active military service.

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.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.

On 11 February 1998 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s appeal for an upgrade of his discharge.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The record does not support the applicant’s contentions, and no evidence to support them have been submitted by the applicant, that his drinking problem began while he was stationed at Camp Greaves, Korea; that he tried to stop, but could not; or that the only time he was offered the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) was after he committed the violations.  The evidence of record shows the applicant’s acts of misconduct (driving under the influence of alcohol, making false official statements, falsifying official documents) happened after he was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  

2.  The applicant’s misconduct constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of soldiers in the Army and adversely affected the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.

3.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

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

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___rvo__  __slp___  __kam____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-07764	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990114	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19950830	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C14	
DISCHARGE REASON	Misconduct	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 9319		
2. 9323		
3. 9329		
4.		
5.		
6.