MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           16 May 2000       
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000036311

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant provided two applications.  He states, in effect, that he became an alcoholic in West Germany while serving in the U.S. Army and that he was discharged on a “Section 208” for alcoholism.  He contends that he was led to believe that if he remained sober for five years after his discharge, his discharge would be upgraded.  He goes on to state that he has been sober for 40 years.  He claims that in 1955 alcoholism in the services was accepted as a disease and since he was discharged subsequent to that time he should not have automatically been discharged with an undesirable discharge for that reason and without being offered treatment.  He further states that an honorable discharge is required in order to obtain citizenship in the United States.  In support of his application, he submits a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 9 January 1998; a character letter from a Pastor of a church in Fort Myers, Florida, dated 24 March 1998; a character letter from a bookkeeper for a business in Romulus, Michigan, dated 1 March 1981; a copy of his DD Form 214, medical documentation pertaining to 35% total body surface burns, dated 18 July 1998; and a letter from the applicant’s daughter, dated 23 January 2000.    

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  The American Legion, as counsel for the applicant, contends that the applicant’s misconduct appears to be directly related to his use of alcohol.  Counsel further states that under current standards the applicant would have been given an opportunity to overcome his alcoholism through treatment in a rehabilitation program.

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

The applicant enlisted on 16 September 1958 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training at Fort Hood, Texas, and was transferred to Germany for duty as a field artillery crewman.   

On 13 June 1959, the applicant was convicted by special court-martial of being disrespectful, by speech, towards a superior officer.  His punishment consisted of confinement at hard labor for 6 months (confinement in excess of 3 months suspended for 6 months), a forfeiture of pay and reduction to E-1.  The convening authority approved the sentence on 19 June 1959.    

The applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation on 19 June 1959 and was cleared for retention or transfer to another unit.

On 24 September 1959, the applicant was convicted by summary court-martial (SCM) of two specifications of being AWOL (total of 8 hours) and breaking arrest. His punishment consisted of confinement at hard labor for 30 days and a forfeiture of pay.  The convening authority approved the sentence on
24 September 1959.    

On 2 October 1959 the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant requested consideration of his case by a board of officers, representation by counsel and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 2 October 1959 and competent medical authority determined that there were no significant mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels.

On 7 October 1959 the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  He based his recommendation for separation on the applicant’s belligerent attitude, non-response to authority, numerous other military offenses, and non-response to rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commanders recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.

The applicant’s personnel records contain a statement, dated 15 October 1959, which states “I hereby state that I understand that if I am discharged from the military service under other than honorable conditions that such type of discharge could bar me from applying for and obtaining citizenship of the United States of America.”

A board of officers convened on 4 November 1959 with the applicant appearing with counsel.  The Board hearing was recessed until the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation.  A psychiatric evaluation was conducted on 10 November 1959 and the findings were identical with the results of the applicant’s psychiatric evaluation conducted on 19 June 1959.  The board of officers reconvened on 
14 November 1959 with the applicant appearing with counsel.  On 14 November 1959, the Board hearing was recessed for a period of 90 days in that sufficient evidence had not been presented upon which to base a clear cut recommendation either for or against the applicant’s retention in the military service.  Also, the hearing was recessed so that further data on the applicant’s rehabilitation could be secured.    

On 1 February 1960, the applicant was convicted by SCM of two specifications of being AWOL (5 hours and 1 day).  His punishment consisted of confinement at hard labor for 30 days and a forfeiture of pay.  The convening authority approved the sentence on 1 February 1960.    
The board of officers reconvened on 9 February 1960 with the applicant appearing with counsel.  The board of officers determined that the applicant possessed undesirable traits of character which did not warrant further retention in the military service, as evidenced by continuous deliberate misconduct, disregard to constituted authorities, infractions of rules and regulations, and frequent incidents with German nationals by getting involved in fights.  The board recommended that he be discharged because of unfitness prior to the expiration of his term of service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 and that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation on 20 February 1960 and directed that the applicant be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on
12 March 1960.  He had served 1 year, 3 months and 7 days of total active service and had 81 days lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge but failed to apply within its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  Section II of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel for frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  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 American Legion’s contentions.  The applicant’s contentions that he became an alcoholic in West Germany while serving in the U.S. Army and that he was discharged on a “Section 208” for alcoholism were also noted by the Board.  However, there is no medical evidence of record, and counsel and the applicant have provided no evidence, which shows the applicant was diagnosed as alcohol dependent.  Medical evidence of record shows that prior to separation, the applicant underwent a medical examination and competent medical authority determined that there were no significant mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels.  Evidence of record also shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness for frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, not alcoholism.  

2.  There is no evidence in the applicant’s records which indicates that he was led to believe that if he remained sober for five years after his discharge, his discharge would be upgraded.  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.

3.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that he wants his discharge upgraded to honorable in order for him to obtain citizenship in the United States.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant was properly advised that a discharge under other than honorable conditions could bar him from applying for and obtaining citizenship of the United States of America.  Also, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of obtaining citizenship. 

4.  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. 

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

6.  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.

7.  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

AAO____  VBC____  LE______  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036311	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000516	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19600312	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-208   	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.