MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           13 January 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC97-08357A
				   AR1998013818

	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. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas N. Kuhn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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:  That his discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he had a psychiatric problem.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 December 1983.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 12B (Combat Engineer).  He had continuous service until his discharge. The highest grade he held was Staff Sergeant, E-6.

On 24 May 1990, the applicant self-referred himself to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) for alcohol abuse and was enrolled in Track I.  He completed and was released from the program on 8 June 1990.

He served in Southwest Asia from 8 December 1990 – 28 April 1991.

On 14 November 1991, the applicant again self-referred himself to ADAPCP for alcohol abuse and some cannabis use.  The ADAPCP client Intake/Screening Record notes that the applicant had received one Article 15 for an alcohol or drug related offense but that document is not available.  He was enrolled in Track III.  On 30 December 1991, the counselor assessed his progress as “unsatisfactory” and noted that he ”…left RTF (residential treatment facility) early - drinking.”

A mental status evaluation was completed on the applicant on 15 January 1992.  He was found to be mentally capable of understanding and participating in proceedings and mentally responsible.

A psychiatric evaluation was completed on the applicant on 22 January 1992.  The diagnosis was alcohol abuse, continuous and anti-social personality disorder.  No psychiatric disease or defect was found to warrant his disposition through medical channels.

In January 1992, the applicant completed a separation physical examination and was found qualified for a Chapter 9 (Alcohol or Drug Abuse Rehabilitation Failure) separation.

Department of the Army Form 5008, Telephonic Medical Advice/Consultation Record, dated 3 March 1992 contains the comment “…being court-martialed for offense committed this past weekend.”

Standard Form 600, Chronological Record of Medical Treatment, dated 6 March 1992 contains the comment “Administrative note:  1SG said being court-martialed.”
The court-martial charge sheet and the Chapter 10 proceedings are not available.

The applicant was discharged on 13 April 1992, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial, with a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  He had completed a total of 8 years, 3 months and 16 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may, at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate

Chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 provides for the discharge of members based on alcohol or other drug abuse such as the illegal, wrongful or improper use of any controlled substance, alcohol or other drug when the soldier in enrolled in ADAPCP and the commander, in consultation with the rehabilitation team, determines that further rehabilitation efforts are not practical, rendering the soldier a rehabilitative failure. Nothing prevents the separation of a soldier who has been referred to such a program under any other provision of this regulation.

The applicant originally applied to this Board to change his discharge to a medical under honorable conditions discharge but withdrew that application in September 1997.

On 30 November 1998, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded 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.  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 and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.

2.  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

TNK_____  WTM_____  MVT_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC97-08357A/AR1999013818	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990113	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1992/03/16	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .635-200 chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.