MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  8 November 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001059537

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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 be upgraded to a general discharge and that his benefits be reinstated.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his drug and alcohol abuse prior to his induction and during his military service should be given consideration.  He was also the only son that his father had living at home and his father had health problems.  His absence without leave (AWOL) was the result of his drug and alcohol abuse.  The Army should have seen how he was affected by drug and alcohol abuse, which led to periods of depression.  His ability to serve was impaired by his drug and alcohol abuse.  Additionally, his post service conduct as an addiction counselor and member of various drug and alcohol committees should be taken into consideration.

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

He was inducted and entered active duty on 4 February 1971, at over 19 years of age.  His pre-induction medical examination notes that he admitted to snorting heroin twice with the last experience 5 months prior.  He was found qualified for induction.  The report also shows that he was cleared by a psychiatric consultation.

He completed training as a military policeman and was assigned to Fort Meade, Maryland.  The applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) from 2 July through 29 September 1971.  There is no record of punishment concerning this lost time.

On 12 January 1972, he was punished under Article 15, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failure to go.  The applicant was AWOL again from 7 February through 3 December 1972.

On 6 December 1972, the applicant was provided a medical examination for the purpose of separation processing.  The applicant stated that he was in good health and not taking any medications.  He reported a prior service history of jaw dislocation, concussion injuries, and an elbow injury.  He was found qualified for separation.

On 14 December 1972, charges were preferred on the applicant for the AWOL offense.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request he acknowledged that he might be deprived of many or all benefits provided by the Army and the Department of Veterans Affairs.  He did not provide a statement in his own behalf.

On 4 January 1973, the separation authority approved the request and directed separation under other than honorable conditions.  Effective 18 January 1973, the applicant was separated under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He had 11 months and 14 days creditable service and 371 days lost time.

On 2 February 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board, in a unanimous decision, voted to deny the applicant an upgrade of his discharge.

The applicant provides a character reference letter that complements the applicant’s competence, knowledge, and maturity as a mental health professional. He also provides certificates that attest to his status as a certified addiction counselor and a certified clinical chemical abuse supervisor.

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions 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 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 veteran’s benefits.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2.  The applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge, even after appropriate and proper consultation with a military lawyer, tends to show he wished to avoid the court-martial and the punitive discharge that he might have received.

3.  There is no evidence of record to substantiate the applicant's claim that military authorities were aware of his alleged problems with drugs and alcohol.  The Board notes that the applicant did not discuss these problems during his separation physical or provide these matters in mitigation for his separation.

4.  While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant's good post-service conduct, this factor alone does warrant the relief requested.

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___  __kf___  ___be_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001059537	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011108	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19730118	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Ch10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.