MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           11 February 2000  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028481

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That due to the trauma he suffered he became an alcoholic and lost track of his military duties.  He contends that there was no treatment available for his conditions and that the majority of his service was honorable.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) and a letter of explanation dated 17 June 1999. In summary, he states that he was lied to when he got out of the Army because they said his discharge would upgrade itself in six weeks after he got out, that he did his job in Vietnam and that he was mixed up and was an alcoholic. 

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

The applicant enlisted on 25 July 1966 for a period of 3 years.  He served as a light vehicle driver in Vietnam from 31 December 1966 to 31 December 1967.  The applicant was awarded the Purple Heart for wounds sustained in Vietnam.   

Between 13 October 1966 and 2 May 1969, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on five separate occasions for AWOL, failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (two specifications), drunk in public (two specifications), left limits of post without signing out on pass and breaking restriction.

Between 27 March 1968 and 14 October 1968, the applicant was convicted by three separate special courts-martial for being AWOL (five specifications).

The applicant underwent a neuropsychiatric evaluation on 30 April 1969 and was diagnosed with a passive-aggressive personality.  The psychiatrist determined that the applicant’s condition is part of a character and behavior disorder due to deficiencies in emotional and personality development of such a degree as to seriously impair his function in the military service.  He opined that there is no evidence of a mental disease, defect, or derangement sufficient to warrant medical disposition under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40.  He further stated that the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for separation from the service under the provisions of the appropriate administrative regulation. 

On 27 May 1969 the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to discharge him from the service under the provisions of AR 635-212 for unfitness because of habits and traits of character manifested by repeated commission of habitual shirking in the form of being absent without leave.  He cited the applicant’s 108 days of lost time due to AWOL and 219 days of confinement.  After consulting with counsel on 28 May 1969, the applicant waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and representation by counsel.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The applicant underwent a medical examination and was cleared for separation under the appropriate administrative regulation.

The intermediate commander recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of AR 635-212 for unfitness and that he be furnished an undesirable discharge.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation on 16 June 1969 and directed that the applicant be furnished an undesirable discharge.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 30 June 1969 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness due to an established pattern for shirking.  He had served 2 years and 9 days of total active service with 327 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.   

On 12 August 1982 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied his request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; sexual perversion including but not limited to lewd and lascivious acts, indecent exposure, indecent acts with or assault on a child; drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming drugs or marijuana; an established pattern of shirking; and an established pattern of dishonorable failure to pay just debts or to contribute adequate support to dependents (including failure to comply with orders, decrees or judgments).  When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable 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.  The Board noted the applicant’s contentions that he suffered trauma and became an alcoholic and that there was no treatment available for his conditions. 

2.  There is evidence that the applicant was wounded in Vietnam in 1967.  However, there is no medical evidence available to the Board and the applicant has provided no evidence, which shows that his injury led to alcoholism.  

3.  There is evidence that the applicant was diagnosed with a passive-aggressive personality prior to his separation.  However, evidence of record shows that competent medical authority determined that the applicant was mentally responsible, was capable of distinguishing right from wrong and adhering to the right, and had the capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.

4.  There is no evidence in the applicant’s record that indicated that he was lied to when he got out of the Army because they said his discharge would upgrade itself in six weeks after he got out.  Nor has the applicant submitted any evidence to support his allegation that his discharge would be automatically upgraded.  The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  

5.  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.

6.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

7.  The ADRB denied the applicant’s previous request for a discharge upgrade.
  
8.  The applicant failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

9.  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

MKP____  GDP____  TBR_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028481	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000211	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19690630	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212   	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness due to an established pattern for shirking	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.