MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            20 March 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000050218

	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	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he has been a good citizen since his discharge and that his use of drugs and alcohol impaired his ability to serve.  He claims that he entered the Army and after his training was sent to Germany and worked in the motor pool.  He indicates that he lived off post and his excessive drinking and drug use resulted in his being absent without leave (AWOL) from his place of duty.  He also indicates that he was caught with drugs and as a result was placed in the stockade for three months.  He also claims that he was only 
17 years of age when he enlisted in the Army, had not finished high school, and he was already using drugs and alcohol at the time.  He claims, under today’s standards he would not even be eligible for or allowed to enlist.  He states that if he were in the Army now he would be able to participate in a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program that consists of treatment under a formal rehabilitation program.  Finally, he claims that for the stated reasons the discharge he received was too harsh.  In support of his application, he submits the enclosed letters from his doctor and a literacy tutor.  

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  In effect, that the applicant’s limited education and mental capacity (CAT IV) diminished his ability to serve.  Counsel also suggests that the applicant’s use of alcohol diminished his ability to serve, and that he was not offered an opportunity for rehabilitation as would happen under current standards. Finally, counsel suggests that the applicant’s discharge was too harsh.

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

On 14 September 1970, he enlisted in the Regular Army for three years at the age of 17.  He successfully completed basic training at Fort Knox, Kentucky and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Polk, Louisiana, where he received excellent conduct and efficiency ratings.  

On 14 January 1971, while still in AIT, the applicant was promoted from the rank of private/E-1 (PV1) to private/E-2 (PV2).  Upon completion of AIT he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 76A (Supply Clerk) and he was assigned to Germany for his first permanent duty station.

In March 1971, he arrived in Germany and was assigned for duty with the 
28th Ordinance Company.  On 15 May 1971, while performing duties as a supply clerk, he was promoted to the rank of private first class/E-3 (PFC).  

The first evidence of any disciplinary problems in the applicant’s record is contained in a Department of the Army (DA) Form 20b (Insert Sheet), which documents that the applicant was tried and convicted by special court-martial on two separate occasions.  

On 8 October 1971, a special court-martial adjudged the applicant guilty of two specifications of AWOL and of possessing marihuana.  The first period of AWOL was from 18 June to 6 July 1971 and the second was from 14 to 16 July 1971.  The marihuana possession occurred on 6 August 1971 and the resultant sentence included a reduction to PV1, hard labor without confinement for one month, 14 days of restriction, and a forfeiture of $85.00 per month for two months.  

On 29 March 1972, the applicant was again found guilty by a special 
court-martial, this time of two specifications of disobeying lawful orders, threatening a superior noncommissioned officer, and of disrespect to a superior commissioned officer.  He was sentenced to a forfeiture of $165.00 per month for two months and confinement at hard labor for two months.

The separation packet containing the facts and circumstances pertaining to the separation processing of the applicant is not on file.  However, the record does contains a properly constituted Department of Defense (DD) Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), which was issued to and authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his separation from active duty.  

The DD Form 214 confirms that on 25 September 1972, the applicant was separated with an UD after completing a total of 1 year, 10 months, and 7 days of active military service and having accrued a total of 66 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.  

This document also verifies that he was discharged by reason of unfitness, based on frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. 

In support of his application, the applicant provided letters from his doctor and his tutor.  These letters attest to the applicant’s good post service conduct and indicate that he has been a model citizen for the past five years who has attempted to improve his education and help other people. 

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.  The Board noted the contentions of the applicant and his counsel that his ability to serve was impaired by his age, diminished mental capacity, and alcohol/drug problems.  

2.  In addition, the Board considered the applicant’s good post service conduct, as attested to in the support letters provided by his doctor and tutor.  However, after carefully examining the applicant’s record of service, the Board finds none of the factors raised by the applicant and his counsel, either individually or in sum, warrant the relief requested.

3.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant successfully completed basic training and AIT with excellent conduct and efficiency ratings, and that he was promoted to PFC less than a year after he entered active duty.  These facts, in the opinion of the Board, confirm he was sufficiently mature, possessed the mental capacity, and was physically capable of successfully completing his enlistment honorably.  

4.  Further, the applicant’s medical record contains no evidence that suggests he was ever treated for drug or alcohol abuse while in the service or that he ever requested or was denied the opportunity to participate in any Army alcohol or drug rehabilitation program that was available to him at the time.  Thus, the Board concludes his alcohol and drug and alcohol problems were not so severe as to medically impair his ability to serve.  

5.  The applicant’s record is void of facts and circumstances concerning the specific events that led to a discharge from the Army.  However, there is a properly constituted DD Form 214 on file, which was authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his separation.  This document identifies the reason for his discharge as unfitness and the characterization of his service as under other than honorable conditions. 

6.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that the applicant’s discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time, and finds the character of his discharge is commensurate with his overall record of service.  

7.  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.

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

___fe ___  ___rjw___  __wdp___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000050218	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2001/03/20	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1972/09/25	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.