MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            5 April 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR19998028580

	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. Antoinette Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general discharge or an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: That at the time of his enlistment he was young and immature.  He also states that his ability to serve was impaired not only by his youth, but by alcoholism, which impaired his judgement in understanding the benefits the military could offer him.  He also points out that 31 years have passed since his discharged and his life has changed.  He submits a detailed explanation for his actions, his employment history and several letters of character reference.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  The applicant was discharged under Army Regulation 635-208 “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions” (actually a UD). He states that the applicant’s youth and immaturity, as well as his alcohol abuse, may have contributed to his unsuitable behavior and recommends favorable action.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 22 April 1965.  He completed his basic training at Fort Dix, New Jersey.  On 1 August 1965, he was assigned to Fort Knox, Kentucky, for advanced individual training (AIT) in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11E10 (Armor Crewman).  On 22 August 1965, he was advanced to pay grade E-2, which was the highest pay grade he achieved.

On 24 September 1965, he was transferred to Fort Benning, Georgia, where he completed basic Airborne (parachute) training and then was transferred to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, where he served in MOS 72B20P (Communication Center Specialist) and in MOS 11E10P.

On 2 November 1965, the applicant was listed as being AWOL.  He was returned to military control at Fort Campbell on 13 November 1965.

On 26 November 1965, he was convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of being AWOL from 2-13 November 1965.  His sentence included forfeiture of $60.00 pay per month for 6 months, reduction to pay grade E-1 and confinement at hard labor for 6 months.

On 15 December 1965, the SPCM convening authority modified the sentence to show that any portion of the confinement after 16 December 1965 was suspended for 5 months and thereafter would be remitted without further action. 

On 4 January 1966, the SPCM convening authority vacated the suspended sentence and directed the unexecuted portion of the sentence for 6 months confinement be duly executed.  The applicant was committed to the Post Stockade at Fort Campbell to serve his confinement. 

On 28 January 1966, he was convicted by a SPCM of wrongfully appropriating a 1963 Dodge electrical utility truck, of a value of over $50.00, property of 
the United States on 31 December 1965 and for wrongfully appropriating 
a 1965 Chevrolet panel truck, of a value of over $50.00, property of the Owen L. Prudent on 1 January 1966.  His sentence included forfeiture of $62.00 pay per month for 6 months and confinement at hard labor for 6 months.

On 25 February 1966, the SPCM convening authority suspended the 
4 January 1966 reimposition of the unexecuted portion of 6 month 
confinement imposed by the SPCM of 26 November 1965.  Further, 
the SPCM suspended the remaining portions of the 28 January 1966 sentence 
of forfeiture of $62.00 pay per month for 6 months and his confinement 
at hard labor for 6 months for a period of 5 months unless sooner 
vacated.  Both of these actions were effective on 26 February 1966.  

On 1 March 1966, he was transferred to Company B, 4th Battalion, 503d Infantry at Fort Campbell for rehabilitative purpose.  However, his performance of duty continued to deteriorate. 

On 14 March 1966, while assigned to his new unit, the applicant again went AWOL.  He was returned to military control on 6 April 1966 and was held at the Fort Campbell Stockade in pre-trial confinement. 

On 13 April 1966, the SPCM convening authority vacated the suspended sentence of the 28 January 1966 conviction and directed that the unexecuted portion of the sentence for 6 months confinement was to be duly executed.  The applicant was committed to the Post Stockade at Fort Campbell to serve his confinement. 

On 18 April 1966, his command initiated separation proceedings under the provision of Army Regulation 635-208, by reason of unfitness, frequent 
incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, as evidenced by his past offenses of AWOL, his apparent unwillingness to abide by the laws and regulations of the military and his poor candidacy for rehabilitation.  He was advised of his rights, and received a medical and a mental status evaluation clearance for separation. 

On 27 April 1966, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, and was informed of the impact of a less than fully honorable discharge.  He waived a hearing by a board of officers and he declined to make a statement in own behalf.  His intermediate commander recommended approval of an UD discharge on 
27 April 1966. 

On 28 April 1966, the separation authority approved his separation with a UD for unfitness, under the provision of Army Regulation 635-208, by reason of unfitness, frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  

On 12 May 1966, the applicant was separated with a UD.  He had 7 months 
and 22 days of total active service and 149 days of lost time, due to AWOL and military confinement.

On 19 September 1977, the applicant sought a discharge upgrade through the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB).  After a thorough review of his file, the ADRB denied his request on 3 February 1978.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time set forth procedures and authority for separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  The 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.  A UD 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.  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.  Notwithstanding his completion of training and reaching pay grade E-2, his record of misconduct clearly showed that he was unwilling or unable to further perform his duties as a soldier consistent with the Army standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance by military personnel.

3.  He has provided no probative evidence that he abused alcohol while in the Army.  There is no evidence he ever sought help for this condition and he was medically cleared for separation.  

4.  The applicant's contention that he was young at the time of enlistment, with an apparent lack of maturity is accepted by the Board.  Further, his good post service conduct and actions are commendable.  However, neither of these factors overcome the serious nature of the offenses and his demonstrated disregard for military authority and therefore are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief. 

5.  The type of discharge directed and the reason therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

6.  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

__rvo___  ___sk____  ___le____  DENY APPLICATION

				Karl F. Schneider
				Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028580	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000405	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19660512	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	A10.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.