MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:            5 August 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003085334

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Ronald J. Weaver		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 (UD) be changed to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his alcohol problems started prior to his entering the Army and continued during his active duty tenure.  He states that alcoholism is a genetic disease that has caused him many problems.  He further comments that he was a young Vietnam era veteran whose decision making process was flawed.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214).

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

On 29 July 1971, the applicant entered the Army for a period of 2 years.  The highest rank he attained during his tenure on active duty tenure was private/E-2 (PV2), and his record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

The applicant’s record shows that he completed basic training and attended advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Gordon, Georgia.  It also reveals an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of non-judicial punishment (NJP) on the following three separate occasions for the offenses indicated:  21 October 1971, for disobeying a lawful order; 20 January 1972, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 31 October 1971 through 12 December 1971; and 17 February 1972, for being AWOL from 11 February 1972 through 
13 February 1972.  In addition, he was convicted by a special court-martial on the following two dates for the offenses indicated:  30 March 1972, for being AWOL from 19 February 1972 through 12 March 1972; and 17 August 1972, for being AWOL from 8 May 1972 through 16 July 1972. 

On 9 November 1972, the applicant’s unit commander notified him that a separation action was being initiated to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness.  The commander stated that the basis for the separation action was the applicant’s frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  The unit commander further stated that the applicant had ample opportunity to complete a course of instruction commensurate with his ability and his performance of duty had been unsatisfactory due to AWOL related misconduct.  Finally, the unit commander indicated that further rehabilitative efforts would be useless.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation action notification and consulted legal counsel.  Legal counsel advised him of the basis for the contemplated separation action, the effects of an UD, and of the rights available to him.  Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant completed his election of rights by waiving the following rights:  consideration of his case by a board of officers, personal appearance before a board of officers, and consulting counsel; and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The separation action was approved by the appropriate authority and on 
14 December 1972, the applicant was discharged from the Army with an UD.  At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 8 months and 6 days of creditable active military service, and he had accrued 250 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.  

On 21 November 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that the applicant’s UD was proper and equitable and it denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.  

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who were found unfit or unsuitable for further military service. The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness.  An UD 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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that alcohol problems, a genetic disease, contributed to his misconduct.  However, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim, and even if true, this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to support the requested relief.  His separation was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations in effect at the time and the type of discharge he received accurately reflects his overall short and undistinguished record of service.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 

2.  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.

3.  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

__LS__  _RJW___  __CLG__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003085334	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED		
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	 UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1971214	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-212 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 853	144.9319	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.