MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           5 December 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000042826

	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. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Ann M. Campbell		Chairperson	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub 		Member	
	Mr. Jose A. Martinez 		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his misconduct was alcohol related; that he was denied alcohol/drug rehabilitation treatment; and that under current standards he would have had an opportunity to participate in the Army’s Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP).

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  In effect, that the applicant maintains the Board should consider his abuse of alcohol and lack of treatment for his alcohol abuse as mitigating factors for his misconduct.

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

On 18 January 1968, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 2 years.  At the time of enlistment, the applicant was 21 years old, had an Armed Forces Qualification Score (AFQT) of 12, and was placed in Mental Category IV. He was assigned to Fort Dix, New Jersey.  He completed basic combat training (BCT); however, prior to completing advanced individual training (AIT) he departed his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status.

The applicant was AWOL from 15 - 22 April 1968.  On 23 April 1968, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for this period of AWOL.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $27.00 pay per month for 2 months and 30 days’ restriction and extra duty.

On 2 May 1968, the applicant again departed his unit in an AWOL status.  He remained absent until 25 May 1968.  On 10 July 1968, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial for this period of AWOL.  He was sentenced to 5 months’ confinement at hard labor and a forfeiture of $46.00 pay per month for 5 months.

On 23 July 1968, the applicant once again departed his unit in an AWOL status.  He remained absent until 10 December 1968.  On 31 December 1968, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial for this period of AWOL.  He was sentenced to 6 months’ confinement at hard labor and a forfeiture of $60.00 pay per month for 6 months.

On 14 January 1969, the applicant was confined at the Correctional Training Facility, at Fort Riley, Kansas.  He completed AIT and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B (Cook).  He received excellent efficiency and conduct ratings during his tour at Fort Riley.

On 13 March 1969, the applicant was assigned to Fort Polk, Louisiana.  He received excellent efficiency and conduct ratings during his tour at Fort Polk.

On 31 March 1969, the applicant accepted an NJP for willfully disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $14.00 pay and 14 days’ restriction and extra duty.

On 3 June 1969, the applicant accepted an NJP for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $14.00 pay and 14 days’ restriction and extra duty.

On 6 July 1969, the applicant reported for duty with the 8th Infantry Division in the Federal Republic of Germany.  

On 20 March 1970, the applicant was charged with 2 specifications of assault on two German civilians.  The applicant’s company and intermediate commanders recommended the applicant be tried by special court martial.  His company commander also recommended he be retained in the Army.  On 1 May 1970, the applicant was also charged with assault on a German female and breaking restriction.

On 4 June 1970, having been advised of his rights by legal counsel, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

On 15 June 1970, the applicant’s company commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 with a UD.

On 17 June 1970, a medical examination qualified the applicant for discharge and his intermediate commander recommended approval of the chapter 10 request with a UD.

On 22 June 1970, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request and separation with a UD.  Accordingly, on 29 June 1970, the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 2 years, 5 months, and 11 days of creditable military service and accruing 274 days of lost time.

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.  However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of a UD.

On 16 April 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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 contention of the applicant and his counsel; however, the Board found that while alcohol may have played a part in some of the applicant’s misconduct, it was not a contributing factor in the majority of his misconduct.

2.  Although there is no evidence that the applicant was command-referred to the ADAPCP for treatment, he could have referred himself if he felt that his problem was severe enough to warrant treatment. 

3.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

4.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

5.  The applicant's misconduct constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of soldiers in the Army and adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting a general or honorable discharge.

6.  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 this requirement.

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

__amc___  __alr____  __jam___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001205	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.