MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:          10 December 1998
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AC98-11506

	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	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. James M. Alward		Member	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded 
to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he served his first period of service honorably with no problems.  However, due to his drinking problem, he became involved with brawls with civilian authorities.  He also states that he was not 
treated for his problem during his second enlistment.  He has since made a
change in his life, received treatment for his problem and requests reconsideration of his case.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his completion of his alcohol and substance abuse program and several character references.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  In effect, that his misconduct was directly attributable to alcoholism and that alcoholism is recognized as a disease under current regulatory standards and should be considered in upgrading his discharge.

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

He was inducted on 26 February 1959 and continued to serve until he was
honorably released on 13 February 1961 under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-205, due to early release of overseas returnees.  He was
transferred to the USAR.  

After a break in service, he enlisted for a period of 3 years on 10 March 1961.

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 17 July 1962 for wrongful
appropriation of government property.  His sentence consisted of a forfeiture of pay, a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, and confinement at hard labor for 
2 months.

The applicant was barred from reenlistment on 19 December 1962 for unsatisfactory conduct.

The applicant was arrested by civil authorities on 4 April 1963 while on pass and charged with malicious assault and cutting.  He was released after serving 
124 days in pretrial confinement.  He was convicted on 6 November 1963 and sentenced to 27 days in jail.  He was credited with time served and spent only 
2 days in jail. 

On 16 September 1963, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for failure to repair.  His punishment consisted of 7 days extra duty.

On 27 November 1963, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation which
diagnosed the applicant as having an aggressive-personality, manifested by fighting, alcoholic excesses, disregard for established rules, poor judgement, and absence of insight. 

He was convicted by a special court-martial on 6 December 1963 for unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon.  His sentence consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, and confinement at hard labor for 3 months.

On 17 December 1963, the commander submitted his recommendation to           
eliminate the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-208, for unfitness. 

After consulting with counsel, the applicant requested consideration of his case by, and appearance before, an administrative separation board.  He also requested representation by military counsel and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The applicant appeared before the administrative separation board on 
23 January 1964 and was represented by counsel.  The board found that the applicant gave evidence of unfitness which rendered his retention in the
service undesirable.  The board recommended that he be discharged from the service for unfitness and that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

The appropriate authority approved the findings and recommendations of the
administrative board on 30 January 1964.  

Accordingly, he was discharged on 7 February 1964 under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness.  He had served 4 years, 6 months, and 14 days of total active service and had 
124 days of lost time due to confinement.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 29 January 1980.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and denied his request on 14 December 1981. 

A review of the documents submitted by the applicant states that he has
no criminal record, is a productive citizen and has turned his life around
since his discharge. 

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel having undesirable habits and traits of character. Paragraph 2 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel where there was evidence of an antisocial or amoral trend, chronic alcoholism, drug addiction, pathological lying, or misconduct.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate

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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with 
applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore appear to be 
appropriate considering the available facts of the case

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, his
record of misconduct was too serious, and his service was too undistinguished for equitable relief to be appropriate.

4.  In view 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

__jhl____  ___sk   __  ___ja ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director