MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:         

	BOARD DATE:           18 July 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000038153

	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	
	Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson 		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon 		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson 		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:  In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable. 

APPLICANT STATES:  That he had no prior misconduct nor nonjudicial punishment. He received inadequate legal counsel.  He should have been returned to the drug and alcohol treatment program, instead of being discharged. He states that his conduct and efficiency ratings and proficiency marks were mostly pretty good. His record of promotions showed he was generally a good soldier.  He stated that his ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity.  His use of drugs and alcohol impaired his ability to serve.  His low aptitude scores and level of education impaired his ability to serve.

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

The applicant entered on active duty on 5 March 1980, completed training, and in June 1980 was assigned to the 4th Quartermaster Detachment in Korea as a vehicle driver.  He was advanced to pay grade E-3 on 1 February 1981.  

A 12 February 1981 DA Form 4465 (ADAPCP Military Client Intake and Follow-up Record) indicates that the applicant had been a self/voluntary referral in the alcohol and drug prevention control program.

In a 20 July 1981 memorandum a trial counsel stated that he personally spoke with the commander of the 4th Quartermaster Detachment and the commander of the MSC-K, who both recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request for discharge.  

The applicant’s file contains no record of the discharge proceedings. 

The applicant was discharged at Oakland Army Base on 29 July 1981 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, because of conduct triable by court-martial.  His discharge was under other than honorable conditions.  He had 1 year, 4 months, and 5 days of service.

In an 8 February 2000 letter to this Board, the counselor for a lifeline program in Lexington, Oklahoma, requested due consideration be given to the applicant’s request.  He stated that the applicant was incapable of understanding the correct procedures and was unable to meet deadlines, and that when he was referred to their drug treatment program, he had to be deferred until his reading abilities improved beyond the 2nd grade level.  That person also stated that the applicant had advanced to the rank of Private First Class.  He stated that the applicant had said that he was transported to an unfamiliar base following the incident leading to his discharge, and was unable to receive advice.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is 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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.   

2.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.   

3.  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 that requirement.

4.  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__  ___mvt__  ___eb___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000038153	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000718	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 360	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.