MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:    27 April 1999                       
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12436
                                              AR1999015017

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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:  The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he feels that he was unjustly discharged due to his drug addiction.

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

On 3 August 1970, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States for a period of 2 years, and training in military occupational specialty 
95B (Military Policeman).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.

On 24 May 1971, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time (22 May 1971).
His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-2 and forfeiture of pay.

On 2 November 1971, he was found guilty by a summary court-martial of being disrespectful toward a superior commissioned officer; larceny of four thousand won (valued at $10.81) from the Camp Hendrich KATUSA Snack Bar; and for being disorderly in the 260th Military Police Company area.  His sentence included confinement at hard labor for 30 days (suspended); forfeiture of pay; and reduction from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-1.  On 13 December 1971, the suspended confinement was vacated when he committed further misconduct on 11 December 1971.

On 22 December 1971, the applicant's commander initiated a bar to reenlistment against him.  The applicant was counseled and advised of the basis for the action.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 22 December 1971, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation by professionally trained personnel.  He was diagnosed to have an immature personality and he had a long history of drug abuse prior to being in the service and after enlisting.  Further, he was found to be mentally responsible and able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  It was determined that he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.

On 7 January 1972, he was convicted by a second summary court -martial of willful and wrongful destruction of both private and military property; for being drunk and disorderly in a public place; for wrongfully carrying a concealed weapon, a straight razor, and for one specification of illegal disposition of ration control items.  His sentence included confinement at hard labor for 30 days, reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1 and forfeiture of pay.

On 7 January 1972, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness, frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. 

On 4 February 1972, the applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated action and its effects, and the rights available to him.  He authenticated a statement in which he acknowledged that he understood the ramifications of receiving a UD.  He waived further representation by legal counsel, and he waived consideration of his case, or a personal appearance before a board of officers.  He also declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 16 February 1972, competent authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a UD, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness, by reason of frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. 

On 6 March 1972, the applicant was discharged.  He had completed 1 year,
6 months and 10 days of active military service and he had 24 days lost time due to being in confinement.

Evidence of record indicates the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant an upgrade of his discharge on 28 November 1973. 

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness.  A UD was normally considered appropriate for such discharges.

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

1.  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.

2.  A professionally trained psychiatrist determined that the applicant was mentally responsible and able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and he has submitted no evidence to the contrary.

3.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

4.  His performance and conduct clearly departed from acceptable Army standards and, in fact, if he knowingly violated the Army’s policies not to possess or use illegal drugs, he compromised the trust and confidence placed in him as a soldier.  By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge. 

5.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.

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

JNS____  RVO_____  CLG____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12436/AR1999015017	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990427	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720306	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212  	
DISCHARGE REASON	frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities	
BOARD DECISION	(NC)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	He was unjustly discharged due to his drug addiction.	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.