PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           12 December 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002073994

	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	
	Mr. G. E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Roger W. Able		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		Member	
	Mr. Bernard P. Ingold		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 discharge be upgraded.

3.  The applicant states that he believes that his entire service was not taken into consideration in determining the characterization of his service.  He states that, in his teenage years, he did not fully understand the magnitude of his conduct, that he was young and regrets his mistakes.  He states that the misconduct that led to his release occurred during a very brief period when he was without the support of his family due to an overseas assignment.  He requests an upgrade to be able to leave a legacy of honor behind for his children, his grandchildren, and his people.  

4.  He was granted a waiver for a civil offense of underage drinking and entered active duty on 10 April 1959, at age 18.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training for field artillery with additional airborne training.  He was promoted to specialist (E-4), the highest grade he held, on 8 September 1959.

5.  The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniformed Code of Military Justice on four occasions; 30 November 1960, for consumption of "winter-green", a cleaning solvent, while drunk resulting in hospitalization; 15 January 1961, for being 1 hour late returning from pass due to intoxication; 5 July 1961, for disrespectful language toward an noncommissioned officer; and, 7 August 1961, for being off post without a pass.

6.  On 9 September 1961, the applicant was found guilty by a special court- martial of being drunk on duty and disrespectful language toward an officer.

7.  On 11 September 1961, the applicant's command commenced discharge actions under the provisions Army Regulation 635-208 following the special court-martial.  In accordance with regulations then in affect, the applicant was afforded medical and psychological evaluations prior to being referred to a review by a board of officers in accordance with Army Regulation 635-208.  The medical examination found him qualified for retention or to participate in any administrative actions.  The psychiatric examination found him to have a slightly immature and passive-aggressive attitude.  The psychiatrist opined if some positive action could be implemented the applicant "could certainly be of use to the military'" and that his performance could "prove of value."

8.  The applicant appeared before the board of officers with counsel on 26 December 1961.  Testimony offered at the hearing indicated that all of the disciplinary actions against the applicant were alcohol related.  The applicant's company commander, first sergeant and section chief all testified that the applicant had spoken to them on several occasions about his drinking problem.  They indicated that when he used his free time for activities other than drinking he had no problems.  They described his garrison duty performance as fair to above average and his field work as exceptional.  The company commander did not believe he had potential for rehabilitation; however, both the first sergeant and his section chief felt that, with assistance, the applicant could be rehabilitated. 

9.  On 3 January 1962, the board of officers recommended that the applicant be separated from the service due to unfitness and be given an undesirable discharge.

10.  The discharge authority accepted the recommendation and directed that the applicant be reduced to the lowest pay grade (E-1) and be separated from the service with receipt of an undesirable discharge (UD).

11.  The applicant was discharged, on 5 February 1962, with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service.  He had 2 years, 8 months, and 10 days of creditable service with 47 days lost due to confinement.

12.  In support of his application, the applicant submits three letters of character from members of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community.  The first, from the Director of the Department of Corrections, describes the applicant as very professional and competent, a man of great integrity who volunteers "countless" hours to the detention facility.

13.  The second, from the First Vice President for the District Council of Iron Workers, describes having known and worked with the applicant for 30 years.  He found him unselfish in giving of his time and effort to people, striving to tirelessly to better the lives of others, and respected by all.  

14.  The third letter, from the President of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, states that he has known the applicant for 18 years.  He describes the applicant as a role model who has gained the respect and support of people locally, regionally, and nationally.  He relates that the applicant is very active and successful, both as a volunteer and a professional, in working with children and incarcerated people with alcohol and drug abuse problems.  He describes the applicant as an excellent example that change is possible.

15.  In addition to the issue currently before the Board it is noted that the applicant's award of marksmanship qualifications are not reflected on his DD Form 214.  The record shows that he qualified as a sharpshooter with the   M-1 rifle, the M-14 rifle and the carbine.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  Testimony offered before the board of officers hearing shows that the applicant's command knew that he had a problem with alcohol for an extended period of time.  Regrettably, the Army did not yet have the alcohol abuse programs in place to assist in his rehabilitation as are currently available.

3.  The record clearly shows that the applicant’s post service conduct has been outstanding and his positive contributions to his community have been significant and many.  The applicant has been able to turn immensely serious consequences for his alcohol related misconduct to assist others in their own recovery.  Given these factors, the Board concludes that clemency is warranted in this case.  

4.  The Board is convinced that the applicant’s alcohol related misconduct did diminish the overall quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  However, in recognition of the honorable nature of the majority of his military service coupled with his meritorious post service conduct and accomplishments, the Board determines that, in the interest of justice, equity, and compassion, clemency should be granted in the form of an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge to general, under honorable conditions.  The Board finds neither an equity nor propriety basis that would justify a change to either the reason or authority for the applicant’s discharge.

5.  The applicant's DD Form 214 does not reflect the award of the applicant's marksmanship qualifications.  It will correct an error to properly reflect these decorations on his DD Form 214. 

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

RECOMMENDATION:

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

a.  voiding his undesirable discharge of 5 February 1962;

b.  showing that the individual concerned was separated with a general under honorable conditions discharge on 5 February 1962; 

c.  issuing him a new DD 214 Report of Separation and General Discharge Certificate, dated 5 February 1962, reflecting the aforementioned corrections and,

d.  by showing his award of the marksmanship qualification badge at the sharpshooter level for the M-1, M-14, and carbine with appropriate bars.

BOARD VOTE:  

__RWA__  __KYF___  __BPI__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_       Roger W. Able_______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002073994	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED		
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.45	
2.	144.92	
3.	144.93	
4.		
5.		
6.