PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           5 March 2002  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001061058

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings 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. Fred N. Eichorn 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern III		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge or that the reason for discharge be changed to "Convenience of the Government." 

3.  The applicant states that his conduct/behavior and efficiency ratings were good and that he advanced quickly, attaining the rank of sergeant (SGT/E-5); that he was viewed as a team leader and given greater responsibility than others of the same grade; and that the use of alcohol impaired his judgment.  Concerning his alcohol abuse, he adds that he was a young and inexperienced drinker.  Sometimes after drinking, he could not remember where he had been or what he had done.  He believes that he was a borderline alcoholic and he realizes that his actions were foolish.  He reached a point where he did not care if he was discharged.  He believes that under current standards his situation would have been handled differently and he would have received a general discharge under honorable conditions.  Since his discharge, he has become a good citizen and he has taught his children to be good citizens. He performs community service teaching young children geology, fishing and hunting skills.  He regrets his past actions and he believes that he deserves a second chance.  In support of his request, he submits a character reference letter and a copy of his NA Form 13038 (United States of America Certification of Military Service), dated 12 April 1999.

4.  The applicant's character reference states that he has known the applicant since he was a young child.  He also states that the applicant is a good family man, dedicated to his wife and children, and those who know him respect him.  The applicant has turned his life around and he deserves a break for being stupid when he was young.

5.  The majority of the applicant's military records are presumed lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973.  Information herein was obtained from a reconstructed record.  The applicant's DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States) is not contained in the available record.  

6.  The applicant was 19 years of age when he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 15 July 1954.  He was assigned to Germany in December 1954.  On 21 February 1956, he was promoted to private first class, pay grade E-3, which was the highest grade that he achieved.

7.  An Army Discharge Review Boards (ADRB) Case Report, dated 19 April 1962, reveals that, on 4 October 1956, the applicant's commander recommended that a board of officers meet to determine his fitness for continued military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.  The basis cited for the recommendation was that the applicant was emotionally unstable and that his off duty drinking habits often aggravated his situation.  Several times, he was drunk to the extent that he was uncontrollable.  On two occasions, he had to be restrained in a "straight jacket."  

8.  On 25 October 1956, the applicant appeared, with counsel, before a board of officers.  The applicant testified in his own behalf and acknowledged that he had done nothing to try to control his drinking.  During the board proceedings, the facts revealed that the applicant received three nonjudicial punishments (NJP's). On 19 April 1956, he received NJP for performance of guard duty in an unprofessional manner on 10 and 11 April 1956.  His punishment included 14 days' restriction.  On 17 June 1956, he received NJP for missing bed check and was reduced from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-2.

9.  On 12 August 1956, the applicant received his third NJP after he drank some beer, became violent and aggressive, and threatened to hit a noncommissioned officer with an entrenching tool.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1.

10.  On 19 September 1956, the applicant was apprehended by the military police in a downtown area of a German town for fighting with German Nationals.  When he was taken to the police station, he tried to tear the railings off the duty sergeant's desk and he broke the door on his cell.  His chain of command brought court-martial charges against him, but dropped them when discharge proceedings were initiated.  

11.  On an unknown date, the applicant’s unit went to the firing range and left him behind on charge-of-quarters (CQ) duty.  He was reported to have been under the influence of alcohol while on CQ duty.  He also committed misconduct on several other occasions, however, no charges were brought against him.  

12.  On an unknown date, the applicant was admitted to the hospital for examination and treatment.  The type of treatment he received is not specified.  He returned to his unit and his actions did not change; he became an administrative burden to his unit and his attitude influenced those around him.  

13.  The applicant's first sergeant stated that, at times, the applicant was moody, displayed a sullen attitude, and that when he tried to speak with him to determine what was troubling him, the applicant stated that nothing was wrong.  He continued to drink excessively on numerous occasions and counseling was to no avail.  

14.  The initial discharge board proceedings indicated that, when the applicant went on pass, he frequently returned late, drunk, and was incapable of performing his duties the next day.  Many times, he became frustrated and felt that he needed to hit or kick something.  Often, he did not remember what had occurred the night before when he was drunk.  As a result of this, his chain of command believed that he could not be trusted to perform well during combat.  The board found that the applicant's duty performance as a radar operator was average.  During the proceedings, the applicant stated that he felt the NJP's that he received were unjust and he was overwhelmed with hostile feelings because he believed that he was a victim of unfortunate circumstances.  He had a history of instability in school, work, his social life, and in the military.  He also had difficulty with the law in civilian life.  

15.  On 5 November 1956, the board of officers determined that the applicant was unfit for retention in the service and recommended that he be separated with a UD.  On the same date, the approval authority directed that the applicant be separated for unfitness with a UD.  

16.  On 13 December 1956, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness with a UD.  He had completed 2 years, 4 months, and 29 days of creditable active military service and had no recorded lost time.

17.  The Army's approach to alcohol abuse has changed over time.  When the applicant was separated in the 1950's, there was no substance abuse rehabilitation program.  Army Regulation (AR) 635-208, then in effect, provided that alcoholism would be dealt with as misconduct and the soldier would be issued a UD for unfitness.  On 8 April 1959, AR 635-208 provided that chronic alcoholism constituted unsuitability and if it were the reason for discharge, the soldier would be separated with an HD or GD, as appropriate.  Under current standards, chapter 9 of AR 635-200 assumes that alcoholic soldiers will have been afforded the opportunity to undergo a rehabilitative program.  Failure to satisfactorily complete the program will result in the issuance of a GD or HD.

18.  As a result of a records review on 17 May 1960, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.  
On 23 April 1962, the applicant's legal representative appeared before the ADRB and the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge was again denied.  

19.  Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for administrative separation for unfitness (misconduct).  Action to separate an individual was to be taken when, in the judgment of the commander, it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impractical or was unlikely to produce a satisfactory soldier.  When separation for unfitness was warranted, a UD was normally issued.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, then in effect, with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.

2.  The applicant’s discharge was, at the time, appropriate even though most of his misconduct appears to have been alcohol related.  There were no substance abuse rehabilitation programs and no provisions for separation due to alcoholism.  In light of the applicant's alcohol abuse problem, it appears that his separation for unfitness was too severe.

3.  The Board does not condone the applicant’s actions.  However, under current standards, the applicant would have been afforded the opportunity to undergo a rehabilitative program and, had he failed the program, he would have been discharged as a result of alcohol abuse and he would have received a GD or an HD. 

4.  The applicant clearly violated the Army's policy and abused alcohol, therefore, he compromised the special trust and confidence placed in him as a soldier.  As a soldier, it was his responsibility to support and abide by the Army's alcohol abuse policies.  This misconduct diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking cognizance of the fact that the applicant's problems were alcohol related, the Board determined that the interest of justice would best be served by granting him a GD.  However, the narrative reason for separation should remain unchanged.

5.  The Board has taken into consideration the applicant’s contention that he was young and immature at the time he enlisted.  However, he met entrance qualification standards, to include age.  The Board found no evidence that he was any less mature than other soldiers who successfully completed their military service obligation.

6.  Further, the applicant's contention that he achieved the rank of sergeant (E-5) is not supported by the record which reflects that the highest grade he achieved was private first class (E-3).  On 12 August 1956, prior to discharge, he was reduced to private, pay grade E-1.  Therefore, there are no provisions for restoration of rank.

7.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected, but only, as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected: 

a.  by showing that the Undesirable Discharge the individual concerned received on 13 December 1956 is void and is without force or effect; 

b.  by showing that he received a General Discharge on 13 December 1956 in accordance with paragraph 5-3, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of unfitness; and

c.	by issuing to the individual concerned a General Discharge Certificate, 
dated 13 December 1956, in lieu of the Undesirable Discharge Certificate of the same date now held by him.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__FNE___  __TBR__  __DPH__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_     _Fred N. Eichorn____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001061058	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020305	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19561213	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(PARTIAL GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.