MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           29 April 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999025041

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Ann M. Campbell		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		Member	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		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 general discharge be upgraded to fully honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he served for over 6 years and was not as bad as his commander said.  He has made efforts to correct his drinking problems.  He submits no documentation in support of his application.

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

He enlisted and entered active duty on 27 January 1982.  He completed training as an armor crewman and served in the US and overseas.  He was promoted to pay grade E-4 effective 27 January 1984 and he reenlisted on 2 December 1984.

The date of his promotion to E-5 is not in the available record however, on 2 December 1985 he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for assault and communicating a threat to another soldier.  The punishment included reduction to E-4.  Also mentioned in the record is another punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, on 14 November 1985, for failure to go to his place of duty but that documentation is not in the available record.

The available record contains several counseling statements during the period October 1987 through July 1988 concerning the applicant.  The first statement concerns an alcohol-related incident that involved the applicant hitting another soldier and stating that he wanted out of the Army.  It also mentioned that he was in an alcohol treatment program and his chain of command would support him in this effort.

A March 1988 counseling statements notes that he was doing a good job but needed to pay more attention to detail and that he was on the promotion list for E-5.  Another statement for that same period notes that he was belligerent and cussed at an NCO.  In June 1988 he was counseled for having to be seen by the first sergeant on two occasions because of alcohol abuse.  A July 1988 counseling statement notes that the process to have him separated had been started.

A 15 June 1988 mental status examination found the applicant's behavior normal.  He was alert and oriented.  His mood was unremarkable; his thinking clear and thought content normal.  The applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and to adhere to the right.  He met the medical retention standards of Army Regulation 40-501 and was qualified for separation.

A July 1988 memorandum from the counselor of the local Army Drug and Alcohol Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) notes that the applicant’s progress had been minimal because of alcohol intake and unsatisfactory command reports of conduct.  He was considered a rehabilitation failure on 6 July 1988.
On 26 August 1988 the unit commander informed the applicant that action to separate him from the Army was initiated.  After consulting with counsel the applicant waived his rights to consideration of his case by a board of officers, representation by counsel, and to submit statements on his behalf.

The separation authority approved the separation and directed issuance of a general discharge without transfer to the Army Reserve.  Effective 29 September 1988 the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9.  He had 6 years, 8 months, and 3 days creditable service and no lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9 provides, in pertinent part, for the separation of enlisted soldiers from the ADAPCP because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical.  At the time of the applicant's separation an honorable or general discharge was authorized.

On 7 April 1999 the Army Discharge Review board (ADRB), in a unanimous vote, recommended denial of the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade to honorable.

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.

2.  The applicant declined counsel, waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers, and acknowledged that he understood the effects of a general discharge.

3.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

4.  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

___AMC__  __ESC___  __CJP___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999025041	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990429	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19880929	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH 9	
DISCHARGE REASON	A69.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.