MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           16 December 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999022606

	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	
	Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred K. McCoy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		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:  Reconsideration of his previous request to correct his records by awarding him a personal decoration for saving the life of a comrade while in combat in Korea.  He also requests that his discharge be corrected to fully honorable and he reports that he is not an alcoholic. 

(NOTE:  He also requests that several World War II documents be corrected to show his correct service number.  Additionally, he points out that the memorandum of consideration (MOC) of the Board’s recent consideration of his awards case mistakenly records that he is authorized one bronze vice one silver service star on his Korean Service Medal.  These matters can de corrected administratively.)

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant has submitted statements from his wife and a son who report that they were present when he met the individual whose life he had saved.  He claims that his discharge was unjust because he was never an alcoholic that he has not had a drink in 28 years.  He submits VA records stating that the applicant suffers from post traumatic stress disorder and has no known history of alcoholism or alcohol abuse.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in an MOC prepared to reflect the Board's recent consideration of his case on 21 January 1999 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant’s submissions are new evidence that require Board consideration.

The applicant’s wife and son report that they were present in 1982 when the applicant met up with the individual whom he had rescued from under enemy fire.  The wife’s statement relates, in part.  “My husband had told me that he never did succeed in his goal of getting the litter bearers to carry his fellow soldier out.”

At the 17 November 1953 board of officers the applicant was asked “Why all those offenses, do you drink too much?”  He replied “Not excessively.  I cannot seem to contain myself.”   Upon recommendation of the board of officers, he was discharged due to habits and traits of character that make his retention undesirable.  He had 278 days total lost time.

The applicant’s discharge was upgraded in 1966 and the reason changed to unsuitability.  His 278 days of lost time precluded greater relief.

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 statements submitted in support of the applicant’s quest for a personal decoration do nothing to overcome the regulatory insufficiency of his case.  Furthermore, the wife’s statement is inconsistent with the applicant’s own earlier version of the event.

2.  Whether or not the applicant ever had an alcohol problem is moot.  Notwithstanding his assertions, he was not discharged for being an alcoholic, but because his behavior got him in trouble as evidenced by his 278 days bad time.  Furthermore, his discharge has been upgraded and the reason changed.

4.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

5.  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.

(NOTE:  The ARBA Support Branch, St Louis is requested to correct the attached World War II service and medical records by entering the applicant’s correct service number and the Board’s 21January 1998 MOC (page 2, last paragraph, 6th line by changing the word “bronze” to read “silver.”)

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__FKM__  ___RVC_  __SK____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

	AR1999022606	
		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1991216	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.