MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            31 October 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000044615

	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	
	Mrs. Joyce A. Hall		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		Member	
	Ms. Brenda F. Hirschi		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was given a discharge UOTHC based on his misconduct which resulted from his use of alcohol.  He was absent without leave (AWOL) and was late for formation on many occasions due to alcohol induced blackouts.  He further states in effect, that in the military of today there are better preventive and corrective measures that are employed to assist soldiers who have drinking problems.  Since leaving the military he has attended rehabilitation clinics and have changed his lifestyle.  He is requesting an upgrade because he is now 65 years old and he would like to be buried with honors.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  In effect, that a review of his military record does indicate that the applicant’s acts of misconduct were, for the most part, related to his excessive use of alcohol.  Under current standards, a person diagnosed with alcoholism would be given an opportunity at entering an alcohol rehabilitation program for treatment of the disease.  In the applicant’s case, he was not given such an opportunity and it would have been very unlikely that he would have been able to overcome the disease on his own.

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

On 3 September 1958, the applicant was inducted in the Regular Army for 
2 years.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty (911.10) (Medical Specialist).

On 15 April 1960, the applicant was honorably discharged and immediately reenlisted on 16 April 1960, for 3 years.

On 2 July 1960, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of
disobeying a lawful order.  He was sentenced to a forfeiture of $25.00 pay and a reduction to pay grade E-2.

On 7 October 1960, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of two specifications of failure to repair on 25 August 1960 and 25 September 1960. 
He was sentenced to 30 days hard labor without confinement and a forfeiture of 
$55.00 pay.

On 10 October 1960, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of 
being AWOL on 3 to 4 October 1960.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days (suspended for 3 months) and a forfeiture of $50.00 pay.

On 11 October 1960, the applicant received a psychiatric evaluation.  There was no evidence of psychosis, neurosis or other disorders qualifying him for disposition through medical channels.  He was considered mentally competent
to participate in board proceedings.  

On the 17 October 1960, the applicant’s commander recommended that he be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, waived consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 20 October 1960, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.  He wrote a statement on his medical report form, which stated that his health was good, better than it has been since being in the service.

On 11 November 1960, the applicant was barred from reenlistment. The commander’s decision to bar the applicant was based on his three summary courts-martial convictions and other minor offenses not punishable by either court-martial or Article 15s.

On 29 November 1960, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of two specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of duty and for being 
AWOL.  He was sentenced to 30 days hard labor and a forfeiture of $60.00 pay.

On 9 December 1960, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 7 January 1961, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness, with an undesirable discharge.  He completed 7 months and 26 days of creditable active service in this enlistment.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  The regulation provided for the discharge of individuals by reason of unfitness with an undesirable discharge when it has been determined that an individual’s military record was characterized by one of more of the following: frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; sexual perversion; drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit forming narcotic drugs or marijuana; and established pattern for shirking; or an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts.

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 this requirement.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

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

__eja___  __alr___  __bfh___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000044615	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001031	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19610107	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.