MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           21 September 2000
DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000037046

	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. John H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L.Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Eric N. Andersen		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 (GD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he requests that the Board refer to “Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 1010.2 (Alcoholism).”  He also states that he would submit contentions prior to the hearing of his case.  No further contentions have been received.

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

On 12 September 1963, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 111.00 (Light Weapons Infantryman).  

Between January 1964 and November 1964, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) action was imposed against him under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on five separate occasions. 

On 10 January 1964, NJP was imposed against him for sleeping while on guard duty.  His punishment included forfeiture of $19.00 pay, restriction and extra duty.

On 29 January 1964, he was assigned to Korea.  On 17 April 1964, NJP was imposed against him for entering an off-limits establishment.  His punishment included forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

On 5 May 1964, NJP was imposed against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit from 25-26 April 1964.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty. On 19 May 1964, he was again advanced to pay grade E-2.

On 23 May 1964, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of disobeying a lawful order of a superior officer to remain in the company area on 7 May 1964.  He was sentenced to forfeiture of $50.00 pay, reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1, and confinement without hard labor for 1 month (suspended).  On 6 July 1964, he was again advanced to pay grade E-2. 

On 6 August 1964, NJP was imposed against him for leaving his sentinel post without being properly relieved on 6 August 1964.  His punishment included restriction and extra duty.  On 12 September 1964, he was advanced to pay grade E-3.

On 8 November 1964, NJP was imposed against him for being absent from his unit on 7 November 1964.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade 
E-3 to pay grade E-2, forfeiture of pay, restriction, extra duty and an oral reprimand. 

On 1 December 1964, he was convicted by a special court-martial of being disrespectful towards a commissioned officer, of breaking restriction, of being absent from his unit and of disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer on 8 November 1964.  He was sentenced to reduction from pay grade
E-2 to pay grade E-1, confinement at hard labor for 6 months, and forfeiture of $55.00 pay per month for 6 months. 

On 5 February 1965, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation by professionally trained personnel.  He was determined to have a “personality disorder, type unspecified” that existed prior to enlistment.  Further, it was determined that he had a long history of difficulty in the service because of his problem with authority figures.  He did not have a mental or physical defect warranting a medical separation.  Further, he had the mental capacity to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  He also had the mental capacity to participate in Board proceedings.  The recommendation was that he be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness, as soon as possible.  

On an unknown date, the applicant's commander recommended elimination for unfitness, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.  On 13 February 1965, the applicant waived his rights to a hearing before a board of officers; he also waived representation by counsel and declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 10 March 1965, he underwent a physical examination that determined he was in good health.  No signs of alcohol or drug addiction were detected during this examination.

On 11 March 1965, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a UD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  

On 3 May 1965, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness, with a UD.  He had completed 1 year, 
5 months and 27 days of active military service and he had 55 days lost time due to being in confinement.

On 12 May 1969, the applicant’s counsel appeared before the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) and pled his case based on discharge review standards at that time.  The ADRB denied an upgrade of his discharge.

On 21 September 1977, the applicant’s case underwent an initial screening under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) (a DOD directed discharge review program primarily aimed at soldiers who served in Southeast Asia) and his case was found not to meet any of the primary or secondary criteria for such a review.

On 7 December 1977, the applicant’s case was again reviewed, supposedly under the SDRP.  On the OSA Form 172 (ADRB Brief, Statement of Findings, Conclusions and Reasons, Case Report and Directive), the ADRB noted that the file did not contain any indication of the presence of any applicable areas of discretion under the SDRP.  Therefore, the Board denied the applicant’s appeal based on a records review, noting his extensive record of misconduct while on active duty.

Department of Defense Directive 1010.2 (Alcohol Abuse by Personnel of the DOD), that the applicant referenced, was in effect between March 1972 and August 1998 and it established DOD policies for preventing alcohol abuse and alcoholism, and treating and rehabilitating alcohol abusers and alcoholics.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time set forth the basic authority for administrative separation for unfitness (misconduct).  Action to separate an individual was to be taken when, in the judgement of the commander, it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impractical or was unlikely to produce a satisfactory soldier.  When separation for unfitness was warranted, a UD was normally issued.

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.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  

3.  In view of the applicant's numerous acts of indiscipline, it does not appear that his UD was too severe.

4.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.

5.  Prior to being discharged, the applicant underwent a physical examination that determined he was in good health.  He showed no signs of alcoholism or drug abuse.  Therefore, the provisions of DOD Directive 1010.2 do not appear to pertain to him in any way.

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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000037046	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED		
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19650503	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.