MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           1 August 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000050265

	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. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz		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 to a general, under honorable conditions discharge; that his two periods of AWOL (absent without leave) be expunged from his records; and that the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigations) be notified of this action.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was young, immature, and an alcoholic at the time of his entrance into the Army and that his two periods of AWOL (1 October – 12 November 1971 and 31 December 1971 – 23 May 1972) were the result of his alcoholism.  He states that he turned to alcohol in order to cope with the daily pressures of being young and black during a period of social change in America; that he did not dodge the draft and that he tried to perform according to Army standards, but alcoholism got the best of him.  He believes that the Army has punished him for the past 28 years for his alcoholism and that he continues to be punished today, although he no longer drinks, is a model citizen, and has no other criminal record.  Additionally, he believes that he was racially discriminated against by a sergeant in his chain of command; that his discharge is unjust; that the AWOLs continue to hinder his employment opportunities; and that expunging them from his record would remove the felony charges that continue to surface during background investigations.

In support of his applications, the applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf, three letters of character references, and documents from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. 

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

He was born on 27 June 1951 and was inducted into the Army of the United States on 28 May 1971 [at age 20 years, 11 months] under the Project 100,000 Program (soldiers enlisted with low military test scores).  On 4 June 1971, he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 91E, Dental Specialist.  He was assigned to Fort Jackson, South Carolina for basic combat training (BCT).  While in BCT, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being AWOL from 1300 hours to 1900 hours. His punishment consisted of 14 days of restriction and extra duty.  He successfully completed BCT at Fort Jackson with excellent conduct and efficiency ratings and was assigned to Fort Sam Houston, Texas for advanced individual training (AIT) in his enlistment option.  He completed initial training as a medical corpsman, MOS 91A; however, prior to completing training in MOS 91E, he departed AIT in an AWOL status.  He was AWOL from 1 October 1971 to 12 November 1971 when he returned to military control at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. 

On 31 December 1971, the applicant departed AWOL from the Personnel Control Facility, Fort Bragg and remained absent until 23 May 1972 when civil authorities apprehended him and returned him to military control.  On 1 June 1972, the applicant was confined to the Post Stockade at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and charged with two periods of AWOL totaling 186 days. 

On 6 June 1972, the applicant, after consulting with legal counsel, voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  This request was made after counsel advised the applicant of the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum punishment, and the possible effects of a UD.  The applicant also attested to the fact that he fully understood that he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) and that he may be deprived of many veteran benefits under state law.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf. 

On 6 June 1972, the unit commander recommended the applicant be separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 for the good of the service.

On 8 June 1972, the intermediate commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200.

On 13 June 1972, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed issuance of a UD and a reduction in grade to the rank of Private/E-1.  Accordingly, on 15 June 1972, the applicant was discharged after completing 4 months and 24 days of active military service and accruing 186 days of lost time. 

The evidence of record indicates the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge and that the ADRB denied his request on 15 January 1974, 9 November 1977, 30 August 1979, and 28 January 1982.

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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is 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 applicant contends that he was young, immature, and addicted to alcohol at the time of his entrance into the Army, and that this addition impaired his ability to serve.  The Board notes that the applicant was 1 month shy of his 21st birthday when inducted.

2.  The applicant did state on his induction paperwork that he had an alcohol problem; however, the Board concluded that the applicant had many legitimate avenues available to him to obtain assistance for his substance abuse without resorting to the misconduct that led to his discharge.  Alcohol abuse does not excuse misconduct.

3.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that a drill sergeant in his chain of command discriminated against him; however, the Board found no evidence of discrimination and he has provided no evidence to support his contention.

4.  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 discharge under honorable conditions.

5.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, 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.

6.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.

7.  The applicant’s characterization of service was appropriate at the time of discharge and is still appropriate under current standards.

8.  The Board considered the applicant’s age and immaturity, post-service accomplishments, and his personal letter as well as letters of character references submitted with his application.  The Board commends the applicant on his success in overcoming his alcohol addiction; however, all of these things did not mitigate the misconduct in the service record.

9.  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.

10.  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

__JH____  _MHM __  __EWL __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000050265	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2001/08/01	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1972/06/15	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, c10	
DISCHARGE REASON	AWOL	
BOARD DECISION	Deny	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	134.000.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.