MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  15 February 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000046316

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		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 general discharge be upgraded to 
honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That while on active duty, incidents occurred which were a direct result of his addiction to alcohol and drugs.   In support of his application he submits three character references and a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 14 June 1979 as a cannon crewman.

Between 15 December 1981 and 26 April 1982, the applicant was punished 
three times under Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to obey a lawful order from a commissioned officer, for being disrespectful in language toward a noncommissioned officer, and for being absent from his appointed place of duty.
His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, a reduction to the pay grade of
E-3 and E-2, restriction, and extra duty.

The applicant was barred from reenlistment on 13 May 1982 for the aforementioned offenses.

On 9 June 1982, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, and 14 days restriction and extra duty.

The applicant underwent a mental evaluation on 2 July 1982, which 
determined that he could distinguish right from wrong and that he possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative or judicial proceeding.

On 12 July 1982, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty and for sleeping at his post.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, and 45 days restriction and extra duty.

On 13 July 1982, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14-33a,
for acts of misconduct.  He based his recommendation on the applicant’s reassignment to two different sections under three different chiefs, and his 
deteriorated performance.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived
his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On that same day, the commander submitted his recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14-33b(1), due to his frequent incidents of discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.

On 24 August 1982, the separation authority disapproved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, pursuant to paragraph 14-37, of Army Regulation 635-200.  The separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13-4c, due to his record of apathy.  He was furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 10 September 1982.  He had a total of 3 years, 2 months, and 27 days of creditable service.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect, at that time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Paragraph 
14-33b pertains to patterns of misconduct, which includes; frequent incidents of discreditable nature with civil authorities, an established pattern for shirking, or showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts, and showing dishonorable failure to contribute adequate support to dependents or failure to comply with orders, decrees, or judgement of a civil court concerning support of dependents.

Paragraph 14-37, of the same regulation states, in pertinent part, that the intermediate commander may take the following action:  a) Disapprove the recommendation and direct reassignment of the member to another organization or direct disposition by other means; b) Approve the commanding officer’s recommendation and forward the report to the commander exercising general court-martial jurisdiction; c) Recommend separation for unsuitability, if the reason for separation is determined substantially to be a pattern of misconduct and it is caused by any of the conditions described in paragraph 13-4, of this regulation.  Commander exercising special court-martial jurisdiction may disapprove the recommendation relating to misconduct and take further action.

Chapter 13, of that same regulation, applied to separation for unfitness and unsuitability.  At that time, paragraph 13-4c provided for separation due to inaptitude, personality disorder, apathy, and homosexuality.  The regulation requires that separation action will be taken when, in the commander’s judgement, the individual will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.  When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual’s entire record.

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 notes the applicant’s contention that while on active duty, incidents occurred which were a direct result of his addiction to alcohol and drugs; however, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to show that the incidents which occurred while he was on active duty were a direct result of his addiction to alcohol and drugs.

2.  The Board also notes that the applicant was initially recommended for separation for acts of misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 14-33.  However, the division artillery commander, with special court-martial jurisdiction authority, disapproved the recommendation for chapter 14 and recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13-4c, due to his record of apathy.  

3.  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.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were
appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

5.  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.

6.  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

__fe____  __mm____  ___mp___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000046316	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010215	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19820910	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, C, 13-4c2	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.