MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           2 December 1998                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11387

	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. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	
	Mr. John H. Kern		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 undesirable, under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general under honorable conditions discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he started using drugs while in the Army.  Because of his Article 15s he needed to sell drugs for his living expenses.  He has been with Alcoholics Anonymous.  Based upon today’s standards he would have received a general discharge.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  That the applicant’s record reveals that he had at least five incidents with the police involving alcohol prior to his entry into service, which supports his claim that his acts of misconduct were directly attributable to alcoholism, a recognized disease by current Army standards.

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

He was born on 29 September 1950.  He was inducted into the Army on 24 June 1970.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training (AIT) and was awarded military occupational specialty 13A (Field Artillery Basic). His conduct and efficiency ratings during basic training and AIT were “excellent.”

On 4 January 1971, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for wrongfully possessing one ounce, more or less, of marijuana.

On 12 April 1971, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for disobeying a lawful order.

On 22 April 1971, the applicant received a rehabilitative transfer.

On 25 May 1971, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for disobeying a lawful order.

On 25 May 1971, the applicant was flagged (suspension of favorable personnel actions) pending elimination under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.  The separation packet is not available.  The applicant apparently did request appearance before a board of officers.  Notification to appear as witness documentation indicates the basis for the separation action was an established pattern for shirking.

On 18 June 1971, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

On 12 October 1971, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1 after completing 1 year, 3 months and 16 days of creditable active service with 3 days of lost time.

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 or for an established pattern of shirking were subject to separation for unfitness.  An undesirable, UOTHC 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.  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.  The character of discharge would have been appropriate given the reason for discharge.  Based upon the applicant’s statement, he could have been tried by court-martial on charges of possessing, using and selling narcotics and received a punitive discharge.

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

RVO_____  GDP_____  JHK_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-11387	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19981202	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1971/10/12	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212.  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.