PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:

	BOARD DATE:           23 November 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999022593

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Carolyn G. Wade .		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	
	Mr. Orville W. Troesch		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                            records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	                 advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to honorable.  

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was discriminated against due to an over abundance of noncommissioned officers (NCO) caused by the disbanding of his unit.  He referenced a statement provided by a noncommissioned officer.  He further states he had prior courts-martial, but no convictions, and that the records are no longer available.  In support of his application the applicant provided statements and character references from former employers, correctional institution officials, and concerned citizens.

4.  The counsel contends, in effect, that he needs more records to adequately review the applicant’s case; however, he supports the applicant’s contentions.

5.  The applicant’s military records show that on 26 February 1953 he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 3 years.  At the time of his enlistment he was 19 years of age.  He was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment on 5 April 1955.  At the time of reenlistment he had completed a total of 2 years, 1 month, and 9 days of active military service. 

6.  During the applicant’s overseas tour it appears the applicant abused alcohol during duty hours; that he was admitted to an Army sponsored alcohol treatment program; and that he responded well to anti-abuse treatment and had no incidents of misconduct until his medication ran out and he started drinking again.

7.  The specific facts concerning the applicant’s separation from the Army are not in the record, however, his DD Form 214(Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-208 for unfitness.

8.  On 1 May 1959 the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 6 years, 1 month, and 9 days of active military service and accruing 25 days of lost time.

9.  There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his Discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

10.  Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  That 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.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  It appears that the applicant’s discharge was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The Board noted the applicant’s statements and character references as well as certificates of achievements submitted with his application outlining his successful accomplishments since separation from active duty.

3.  Although the Board does not condone the applicant’s misconduct, the Board determined that the applicant’s youth and immaturity as well as his alcohol problems impaired his ability to serve.  While the record lacks the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge, it is evident that alcohol was a major contributing factor to his misconduct.

4.  Considering the available facts and circumstances of this case and the applicant’s post service achievements the Board determined that the applicant’s characterization of service is inequitable.  It appears that the interest of justice would best be served by changing the applicant’s characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.

5.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was separated from the service with a General Discharge Certificate on 1 May 1959.

2.  That the Department of the Army issue the individual concerned a General Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 1 May 1959, in lieu of the UD of the same date now held by him.

3.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__SAC__  __GDP__  __OWT__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999022593	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991123	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19590501	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.9301		
2.9411		
3.9405		
4.		
5.		
6.