MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

IN THE CASE OF:     

BOARD DATE:           24 February 1999
DOCKET NUMBER:   AC90-07838A
			   AR1998013853

	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	
	Mr. Gerald E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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: Reconsideration of the Board's previous denial of his request to upgrade his discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his problems were primarily alcohol related and that he was not afforded any type of counseling or rehabilitation for this problem by the military.  He contends that he was to receive a hardship discharge but that he was not notified that it was granted prior to his final AWOL.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are the applicant’s military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 3 October 1990 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant submits a five page personal statement outlining his contentions and explanations of the offences that ultimately resulted in his discharge.  He describes his first non-judicial punishment as a conflict of orders, the second as a possible alcohol incident and the remainder as related to his returning home to assist his father.  He submits three letters, dated in 1986, attesting to his character, sobriety and efforts to improve himself and his family situation.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 6 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel because of genuine dependency or hardship.  An application for such separation will be approved when a service member can substantiate that his situation or immediate family's situation has been aggravated to an excessive degree since enlistment, that the condition is not temporary and that discharge will improve the situation.

The Manual for Courts-Martial, as then in effect, and the edition currently effective, both state that voluntary intoxication not amounting to legal insanity, whether caused by alcohol or drugs, is not an excuse for an offense committed while in that condition.

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.  At the time of the applicant’s alcohol related misconduct the Army had not yet developed the current counseling and treatment programs for soldiers with drug and alcohol problems.  However, more importantly the majority of his misconduct was not alcohol related, hence, even if these programs existed he would still have faced a discharge for the repeated periods of AWOL.

2.  An indication that intoxication is an inadequate defense, both in the military and in society as a whole, is demonstrated by the fact that drunk drivers are held legally responsible for the results of their behavior even though they are shown to be alcoholic.  Alcohol dependence does not excuse the commission of offences nor is there a defense in not being afforded counseling or treatment for the condition.

3.  The supporting documents submitted, in concert with this application, predate the applicant’s prior Board review.  While they do show that, in 1986, the applicant was progressing in his efforts to control his dependency and overcome the adverse affects of his discharge, they cover such a short and remote period as to be of little use in determining the applicant’s post service conduct.

4.  As noted in the prior review, the applicant’s file is incomplete and as such while there is an indication that the applicant may have applied for a hardship discharge there is no indication that it was approved prior to his final period of AWOL.  Further, all favorable actions are required to be held in abeyance until action is completed on any disciplinary actions.  This would have properly halted his release under the provisions of a hardship release.

5.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

6.  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

___CMF_  ___MDM_  __BJE___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC90-07838A
AR1998013853	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	19990224 	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	 	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	 	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	  . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	 DENY 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00/189	
2.	A51.00/592	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.