MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:    

	BOARD DATE:           24 February 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026187

	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.

	Ms. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. James P. Huber		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 general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he returned from Korea with an addiction to opium that was not diagnosed until he sought treatment in 1971.  He states that he served his country bravely and unmarred except for one isolated situation and that the situation was the result of his ignorance and youthful thinking.  He states that he “smoked pot” to calm himself down in a stressful situation with the assumption that it was harmless.  He states that he had no idea that “pot” contained opium, however, when he returned to the states he found himself having problems adapting to stateside duty, which resulted in his being issued a general discharge.

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

On 24 August 1961 he enlisted in the Army at age 17, for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his training as an armor crewman.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 24 December 1961.  He was transferred to Korea on 5 February 1962 and he was promoted to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 July 1962.  He returned to the Continental United States on 12 April 1963.

Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 1 July 1963 for being absent from his unit from 0130 hours until 1430 hours on 30 June 1963.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade, restriction and extra duty.

On 26 November 1963, NJP was imposed against him for consuming alcoholic beverages in the troop barracks.  His punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade, restriction and extra duty.

The applicant was convicted by a special court-martial on 10 December 1963 of wrongfully appropriating an automobile and of breaking restriction.  His sentence consisted of confinement at hard labor, a reduction in pay grade and a forfeiture of pay.

On 18 January 1964, the applicant was notified that elimination action had been initiated against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification and, after consulting with counsel, he waived his rights and opted not to have his case heard before a board of officers.  The commander recommended that he be discharged with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  

The recommendation for discharge was approved by the appropriate authority on 19 March 1964.  However, the approving official directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  Accordingly, on 7 April 1974 he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness.  He had 2 years, 4 months and 24 days of total active service and he had 80 days of lost time as a result of confinement.  He was issued a General Discharge Certificate.

A review of the records fail to show that the applicant was addicted to drugs while he was in the Army.

Further review of the records fail to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge with that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, provided for the separation of personnel for unfitness.  Paragraph 10b(3) provides that separation action by the commander exercising general court-martial jurisdiction prior to board action may direct discharge because of unfitness of an individual who has waived hearing by a board of officers.

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 applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not substantiated by the evidence of record.  The applicant was convicted by a special court-martial and he had NJP imposed against him on two separate occasions.  He was not discharged as a result of one isolated incident as he contends and the general discharge issued to him appears to have been lenient. The facts that he was 17 years old at the time of his enlistment is not a basis for granting the relief requested.

4.  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.
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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

CLA____  MVT_____  JPH_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
				     Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026187	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000224	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19640407	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 633-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	583	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  592		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.