MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           25 January 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000040690

	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. Lisa O. Guion		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		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 under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  He was given an under other than honorable conditions discharge because he was an alcoholic.  He states that his discharge should be upgraded to a honorable medical discharge because he suffered from the disease of alcoholism.

In support of his request the applicant submits a letter from his physician which states that the applicant suffered from emotional and alcohol and drug dependency problems all of his life to include his time spent in the military.

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

He enlisted in the Army on 30 November 1967 for a period of 3 years.  He completed his initial training on 19 April 1968 and was assigned to the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) as a utility worker.  After completing 12 months oversea service the applicant returned to the United States on 28 June 1968.  He received the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, and the Vietnam Campaign Medal.

Three months prior to his departure from RVN the applicant received his first of a series of six nonjudicial punishments (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for misconduct.  The record does not specifically indicate what the applicant did to receive each of the NJP’s other than to describe the offenses as misconduct.  The effective dates for the NJP’s and the punishments imposed for his misconduct are:

10 January 1969, forfeiture $30.00 for 1 month
	14 June 1969, forfeiture $25.00 for 1 month
	19 November 1969, reduction to pay grade E-2
	20 November 1969, forfeiture $21.00 per month for 2 months 
	17 December 1969, reduction to pay grade E-1
	27 January 1970, reduction to E-1 and forfeiture $81.00 per month for 2 
months
	
The applicant was charged with violation of Article 86, UCMJ, for being absent without leave (AWOL) (one specification), violation of Article 91, UCMJ, insubordinate conduct toward a superior noncommissioned officer (one specification) and in violation of Article 128, UCMJ, assaults (three specifications).  He pleaded not guilty to all charges and specifications.

On 12 August 1970 the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of AWOL (9 days) and for committing an assault on three different occasions upon three soldiers by striking one on the head and face with his fists, another in his chest with his fists, and by striking the third person on his shoulder with his fists.  He was found not guilty of the charge of insubordination.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 5 months, a forfeiture of $80.00 per month for 6 months, and a reduction to the rank of private (E-1).  The sentence was adjudged on 12 August 1970.  The sentence to confinement at hard labor for five months and forfeiture of $80.00 per month for 6 months was remitted on 
6 October 1970. 

There is no evidence of record to show that the applicant ever suffered from alcohol dependency throughout his military career nor at his time of discharge.

The applicant’s discharge packet is missing from his military records; however, his separation document (DD Form 214) shows he was administratively discharged on 9 October 1970 under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-212 for unfitness.  His service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions.  He completed 2 years, 5 months and 28 days of creditable active service and had 133 days of lost time due to AWOL.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge on 2 March 1984.  Because his records could not be found at that time, his case was closed without action.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities 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.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, administrative regularity is presumed in the applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of AR 635-212 for unfitness.

2.  There is no evidence of record, nor has the applicant provided any sufficient evidence, to show that he suffered from alcohol dependency at the time of discharge.  Alcohol abuse is not a mitigating factor for misconduct.

3.  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

___JH___  ___LE__  __KAH___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000040690	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010125	
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.	129.04	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.