MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            27 March 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000046805

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Roger W. Able 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub 		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire 		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 general discharge (GD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he did not receive a proper psychiatric evaluation prior to enlistment.  He had drinking problem that was never addressed.  His Bamberg, Germany service records will show that he had a drinking problem.  However, he no longer has a problem and he desires to finish the service commitment that he made.  He was issued a size 12 Army boot because a size 13 boot was not available. 

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

That during the enlistment process the applicant was questioned about drug and alcohol use.  At no time did he ever acknowledge any type of abuse.  As a matter of fact, on 7 February 1989, he authenticated a DD Form 2246 (Applicant Medical Prescreening Form) with is own signature indicating he was not addicted to drugs or alcohol and he had never been treated for any type of mental condition.

On 24 February 1989, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 2 years.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13E (Cannon Fire Direction Specialist). 
On 21 June 1989, he was assigned to Germany.

Between 2 August and 23 October 1989, the applicant was counseled on eight separate occasions for various offenses such as: for being drunk and disorderly conduct; for failing his Army Physical Fitness Test; for failure to be at his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed on more than one occasion; for unprofessional personal appearance and military courtesy; and for missing formation.

On 22 September 1989, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being drunk while attending drivers training on 5 September 1989.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of
$349.00 pay per month for 2 months and 45 days extra duty and restriction.

On 2 October 1989, he accepted NJP for being derelict in the performance of his duties by negligently failing to secure his M-16A2 rifle.  His punishment included forfeiture of $163.00 pay and 14 days extra duty and restriction.

On 5 October 1989, the applicant referred himself to mental health.  The available record does not contain any further details about his visit.

On 13 October 1989, a memorandum from the US Health Clinic Bamberg, Germany shows that the applicant had a medical examination on 12 October 1989, and that he refused both antabuse and blood tests.  The examining official stated that the applicant was not interested in treatment for his alcohol problem.

On 23 October 1989, a DA Form 4465 (Alcohol Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) Client Intake/Screening Record) shows that the applicant referred himself to ADAPCP for an initial diagnosis for enrollment.  He spoke with an alcohol and drug counselor and then refused services.  

On 23 October 1989, a bar to reenlistment was initiated against the applicant as a result of the above NJPs and counseling statements.  He did not appeal the bar.

On 24 October 1989, he underwent a psychiatric evaluation by professionally trained personnel, as a part of the separation process.  The examining official stated that the applicant presented himself as mentally responsible and appeared to know right from wrong.  He took little responsibility and blamed others for his situation.  He felt that under his present conditions his work related difficulties were not resolvable.  He showed little motivation to take any part in the resolution of his difficulties and "if retained, may continue to be problematic."  He was cleared for any action the command deemed appropriate.

On an unknown date, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct with a GD.  The commander cited the applicant’s NJPs as the basis for the recommendation.  

On 16 November 1989, the applicant was advised of the basis for the contemplated action and its effects, and the rights available to him.  He declined legal counsel and the record does not contain a statement submitted by the applicant in his own behalf.  He was not entitled to consideration or personal appearance by a board of officers.

On 30 November 1989, competent authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a GD.

On 29 December 1989, the applicant was separated with a GD, for misconduct-pattern of misconduct under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 
635-200.  He had completed 10 months and 6 days of creditable military service and he had no recorded lost time.  He received a reentry eligibility (RE) code of RE-3, which requires a waiver to reenter the service.

On 13 September 2000, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absences without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed.  Army policy states that a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.

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.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reason for the discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.

4.  During the enlistment process, the applicant denied that he had ever suffered from any type of mental condition or alcohol abuse.  He received a psychiatric evaluation as part of his discharge process and he was determined to be mentally responsible and qualified for separation.  

5.  The Board notes that the applicant's chain of command counseled him concerning his alcohol related conduct and he was afforded the opportunity to receive treatment from professional health services on at least two separate occasions and he refused. 

6.  If the applicant desires to reenlist, he should contact his local recruiter to determine his eligibility to reenlist.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of RE codes. 

7.  If the applicant was issued Army boots that did not fit appropriately he should have resolved the problem at that time.

8.  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

__rwa___  __alr____  __gjw____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000046805	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010327	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19891229	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CH 14 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A67.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.6700	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.