MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           10 October 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001054676

	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:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Charles Gainor 		Member	
	Mr. Joe R. Schroeder		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 honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was young and had a drinking problem that the Army failed to address.

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

He was inducted into the Army of the United States on 4 August 1966 for a period of 2 years.  On 11 August 1966, he was assigned to Fort Benning, Georgia for basic combat training.  On 23 August 1966, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being absent without proper authority from his unit from 2200 hours on 21 August 1966 to 1800 hours on 22 August 1966.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $20.00 pay and 14 days of restriction and extra duty.  On 31 October 1966, he was assigned to Fort Gordon, Georgia for military police advanced individual training (AIT).  On 5 November 1966, the applicant was reassigned to another unit at Fort Gordon for AIT in infantry.  On 5 November 1966, the applicant departed this unit in an absent without leave status (AWOL) and remained absent until 14 November 1966.  

On 30 November 1966, the applicant again departed his unit in an AWOL status and remained absent until 11 December 1966.  On 11 December 1966, the applicant was placed in pretrial confinement.  On 20 January 1967, the applicant was convicted by a special court martial of two specifications of AWOL.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 5 months and forfeiture of $64.00 pay per month for 5 months.

On 3 March 1967, the unexecuted portion of the applicant’s approved sentence to confinement at hard labor for 5 months was suspended for 4 months unless the suspension was sooner vacated.  On 5 March 1967, he was released from confinement.  On 11 March 1967, the applicant departed his unit in an AWOL status and remained AWOL until 23 March 1967.  On 24 March 1967, the prior suspension was vacated and the applicant was again confined.  On 21 April 1967, the sentence to confinement at hard labor was suspended for 2 months unless the suspension was sooner vacated.

On 10 May 1967, the applicant was arrested in Richland County, Columbia, South Carolina for using a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent and placed in the county jail.  He was confined until he was released on 22 June 1967.

On 22 June 1967, the State of South Carolina, County of Richland, Court of General Sessions tried and convicted the applicant of using a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent.  He was sentenced to 1 year’s confinement at hard 

labor at the Public Works of Richland County.  His sentence was suspended and he was granted probation for a period of 1 year and was not required to make reports to the Probation, Parole, and Pardon Office.

On 5 July 1967, the applicant’s chain of command was requested to provide comments and recommendations as to whether to retain the applicant in the military or to discharge him under the provisions of paragraph 33, Army Regulation 635-206, for a civil court conviction.

On 11 July 1967, the applicant signed a statement indicating he was aware of his right to appeal his civil conviction, but that he did not intend to do so.

On 12 July 1967, having been advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him under the provisions of paragraph 33, AR 635-206, the applicant waived his rights to a board of officers, personal appearance before a board of officers, representation by appointed counsel, and to submit statements in his own behalf.

The applicant’s entire chain of command recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Army with a UD.  The appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge with a UD.  Accordingly, on 14 August 1967, the applicant was discharged after completing 5 months and 23 days of creditable military service and accruing 189 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-206, then in effect, provided in pertinent part for the administrative separation or retention of enlisted personnel who had committed an act or acts of misconduct by reason of fraudulent entry in the service, conviction by civil court, and absence without leave or desertion.  Paragraph 33 of that regulation prescribed the standards and procedures for processing cases of individuals who, during their current term of active military service, had been convicted by a civil court.

There is no evidence of record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.

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 evidence of record does not support the applicant’s contention that he had a drinking problem and the Army did not address it, and the applicant has provided no evidence to support his contention.  The Board notes that if the applicant did have a drinking problem, he could have brought it to the attention of his command and sought help through his chain of command and available on-post resources.

3.  The Board carefully reviewed the applicant’s record of service and concluded that his discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  Additionally, the applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated his misconduct or poor duty performance.  The applicant’s misconduct, to include a civil conviction and confinement, diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable or general discharge.

4.  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

___LLS__  __CG___  ___JRS  _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001054676	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010910	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19670824	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-206, paragraph 33	
DISCHARGE REASON	Civil Conviction	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	144. 9227	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.