MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            17 October 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000038653

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Ms. Linda D. Simmons		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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge was the result of his alcoholism and this condition went unattended by his supervisors.  In addition, he claims that treatment was not available or offered and, in his opinion, the military should have treated him for his drug addiction rather than court-martialing him and sentencing him to confinement and hard labor.  

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

On 23 August 1963, he entered the Regular Army for four years.  At the time of this enlistment the applicant had completed almost four years of prior service in the United States Air Force and enlistment documents reveal that he was honorably separated from this period of service on 17 April 1961.

The applicant’s record shows that his awards and decorations were limited to an Expert Marksmanship Badge for the M-14 Rifle; a Sharpshooter Marksmanship Badge for the M-1 Rifle; and a National Defense Service Medal.  There are no recorded acts of valor, significant achievement or service warranting special recognition documented in the service record.  However, the record does reveal an extensive disciplinary history.

This disciplinary record includes the applicant’s acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on ten separate occasions.  In addition, he was convicted by Special Court-Martial (SPCM) on two separate occasions and by Summary Court-Martial (SCM) on two separate occasions.  Finally, the record confirms that the applicant had accrued a total of 381 days of time lost during the period of enlistment under review. 

His record of NJP is as follows:  7 July 1964, for disobeying a lawful order; 
8 September 1964, for being absent without leave (AWOL) for 2 days; 8 October 1964, for a 3 day AWOL; 10 February 1965, for missing bed check; 17 March 1965, for a 2 day AWOL; 14 June 1965, for a 2 day AWOL; 7 August 1965, for a 3 day AWOL; 4 April 1966, for a 2 day AWOL; 27 October 1966, for a 4 day AWOL; and 23 June 1967, for three specifications of AWOL for 5, 6, and 8 days respectively. 

His service record also confirms that he was reduced for misconduct as indicated:  8 September 1964, from Private First Class (PFC) to Private/E-2 (PV2); 3 November 1964, from PV2 to Private/E-1 (PV1); 28 March 1965, from PFC to PV2; 15 June 1965, from PFC to PV2; 8 December 1965, from PV2 to PV1; 6 May 1966, from PV2 to PV1; 28 October 1966, from PFC to PV2; and 
15 January 1968, from PFC to PV1.  
His record of courts-martial, to include offenses and sentences, is as follows:  3 November 1964, SPCM for breaking restriction, sentenced to confinement at hard labor for one month and a forfeiture of $73.00; 13 October 1965, SPCM for being AWOL from 9 August 1965 to 6 September 1965, sentenced to a reduction in grade to PV1, a forfeiture of $83.00, and confinement at hard labor for four months (suspended);  5 May 1966, SCM for being AWOL from 21 to 24 April 1966, sentenced to a reduction in grade to PV1 and a forfeiture of $83.00;  11 January 1968, SCM for being AWOL from 16 to 
18 December 1967, sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days and a forfeiture of $50.00.  

On 27 December 1968, while in confinement, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation pursuant to Army Regulation 635-212 processing.  The results revealed no evidence of psychiatric abnormality.  The psychiatrist conducting the evaluation found the applicant intelligent, thoughtful and mature.  He also commented that the applicant was coherent, logical, and cooperative throughout the interview and concluded that there was no evidence of a thinking disorder.  The applicant was cleared for any administrative or judicial disposition deemed appropriate by the command.  

On 29 January 1968, after being notified by his commander that separation action against him was being contemplated, the applicant consulted legal counsel and after being advised of the contemplated action against him and its impact, he completed his election of rights.  He elected to waive his right to have his case considered by and his personal appearance before an administrative separation board.  In addition, he waived his right to representation by counsel and chose not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 1 February 1968, the applicant’s unit commander recommended his separation, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unfitness.  The commander cited the applicant’s habits and traits of character manifested by repeated commission of petty offenses and habitual shirking as the basis for the separation action and he recommended that the applicant receive an UD.  

On 9 February 1968, the appropriate authority approved the separation action and directed that the applicant be separated, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unfitness.  He also directed that the applicant receive an UD and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. 

The record contains a properly constituted Department of Defense (DD) Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), which was authenticated by the applicant with his signature on 23 February 1968, the date of his discharge from the Army.  This document verifies that the applicant was separated, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unfitness, and that he received an UD.  

There is no evidence to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), within the 15 year statute of limitations, for an upgrade to his discharge.  

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members with an established pattern of shirking were subject to separation for unfitness.  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 applicant’s contention that his misconduct was the result of his alcoholism and that the Army never afforded him an opportunity for treatment of his drug addiction.  However, the evidence or record and the independent evidence submitted by the applicant does not support this claim. 

2.  The Board notes that, prior to the enlistment under review, the applicant successfully served in the Air Force and received a complete and unconditional honorable separation with no evidence of alcohol related problems.  Further, there is no evidence of record that shows that he was ever medically treated, during the enlistment under review, for alcohol related problems or to confirm he suffered from an alcohol addiction.  

3.  Additionally, there is no indication in the record that the applicant ever sought assistance from the chain of command for an alcohol problem.  The record does confirm that the chain of command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards.  They provided counseling and imposed NJP; however, the applicant failed to appropriately respond to these efforts.  

4.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall record of military service.  Therefore, the Board finds relief is not warranted in this case. 

5.  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

___be___  ___rvo __  __lds____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000038563	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/10/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1968/02/23	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.