MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           24 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000035340

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		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:  The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general discharge or a fully honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was addicted to drugs and alcohol.  He believes that under current standards he would not have received a UD and that he would have received treatment for his addiction.  He also believes that his conduct ratings and efficiency ratings, the 6 months that he served on the demilitarized zone (DMZ) in Korea, the fact that he almost completed his service obligation, as well as his awards and decorations should be taken into consideration.  He submits four letters of reference and a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) in support of his request.  The letters state that he no longer abuses drugs and alcohol, and that he is a kind, responsible, religious man. 

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

On 6 February 1969, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 
4 years and military occupational specialty (MOS) 76Y (Supply Specialist).  

He served in Korea from 27 June 1969-21 December 1970.  Both his conduct ratings and his efficiency ratings were excellent.  On 29 January 1971, he was assigned to Fort Riley, Kansas.

On 7 April 1971, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of being absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit from 4-9 February 1971 and from 19 February-23 March 1971.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-5 to pay grade E-3 and forfeiture of $75.00 pay per month for 3 months. 

On 25 June 1971, he was convicted by a SPCM of being AWOL from his unit from 12 April-3 June 1971 and from 4-10 June 1971.  His punishments included confinement at hard labor for 4 months, and forfeiture of $50.00 pay per month for 5 months. 

Not all the facts concerning the discharge process are a matter of record.  However, an Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) Case Report and Directive, completed on 2 November 1972, shows that on 6 August 1971, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was being recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.  

On 9 August 1971, he acknowledged that he had been advised of the basis for the contemplated action and its effects, and the rights available to him.  He also stated that he understood the consequences of receiving a UD.  He waived further legal representation and a personal appearance before a board of officers.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf. 

The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation by professionally trained personnel in connection with the separation action.  He was found to have no significant mental illness, he was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  He had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.

On 20 August 1971, competent authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a UD, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness. 

On 26 August 1971, the applicant was discharged.  He had completed 2 years and 3 days of active military service and he had a total of 191 days lost time due to being AWOL and in military confinement.

He was awarded the National Defense Service Medal and the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (Korea).

On 2 November 1972, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge in a records review.

On 8 November 1977, the ADRB again denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge under the provisions of the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP).

On 27 September 1983, the applicant personally appeared before the ADRB with counsel and was again denied an upgrade of his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who were found to be unfit or unsuitable for military service.  The regulation further provided, in pertinent part, that service members discharged for unfitness would be furnished a UD, unless circumstances warranted a general or honorable discharge.

On 4 April 1977, the Department of Defense (DOD) directed the Services to review all less than fully honorable administrative discharges issued between 
4 August 1964 and 28 March 1973.  This program entitled the DOD SDRP required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge upgrade to either honorable or general be issued in the case of any individual who had either completed a normal tour of duty in Southeast Asia, been wounded in action, been awarded a military decoration other than a service medal, had received an honorable discharge from a previous period of service, or had a record of satisfactory military service of 24 months prior to discharge.  Consideration of other factors, including possible personal problems which may have contributed to the acts which led to the discharge, and a record of good citizenship since the time of discharge would also be considered upon application by the individual.  In October 1978, Public Law 95-126 was enacted.  This legislation required that service Departments establish historically consistent, uniform standards for discharge reviews.  Previously upgraded discharges under the SDRP and other programs were to be reconsidered using the uniform standards.  Those individuals whose SDRP upgrades were not affirmed upon review under the historically consistent uniform standards were not entitled to VA benefits, unless they had been entitled to such benefits before their SDRP review.

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 this requirement.

2.  Even though not all of the facts are available concerning the discharge process, the applicant authenticated his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) during the discharge process. The discharge identifies the characterization and the reason.  The Board presumes regularity in the discharge process.  

3.  The Board considered the applicant's entire record of service and was convinced that both the characterization of service and the reason for discharge was proper and equitable.

4.  Neither, the applicant’s awards, nor his Korean service sufficiently mitigate his misconduct to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

5.  There is nothing in the applicant’s record to indicate that he had any type of addiction at the time of his discharge.  If, in fact, he violated the Army's drug and alcohol abuse policies and abused alcohol or used illegal drugs, he compromised the trust and confidence placed in him as a soldier and he would have knowingly risked his military career and diminished the quality of service below that meriting an honorable discharge.

6.  The Board congratulates the applicant on his achievements since departing the Army.  However, the Board does not grant relief solely for post service accomplishments.

7.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge were appropriate considering the facts of the case.

8.  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

__gdp___  __clg____  __alr____  DENY APPLICATION

						
		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035340	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000824	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19710826	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.