MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            19 JUNE 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003085547

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		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 general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge and that he be granted a disability separation or retirement.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he had three previous honorable discharges and that after being out of the service for a period of time he decided to return to military service, and did.  He states that he was promoted to pay grade E-3 and "went for a board for E-4 promotion" but was then hospitalized for about 30 days because of a urinary tract problem.  He states that when he was released from the hospital he returned to his unit but was in a lot of pain and so began drinking and "it killed the pain" so he continued to drink until he was discharged.  He states he continued to drink after his discharge but about 20 years ago was given "Motrin 700 milligrams" which helped with the pain.  He states he has not had a drink now in 16 years.  The applicant also states that after he was released from the hospital and returned to his unit everyone told him he would receive a medical discharge. Other than his self-authored statement, he submits no evidence in support of his request.

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

He served an initial period of active duty between 1951 and 1953.  That period of military service was characterized as honorable.  In August 1958 he returned to active service.  His 1958 enlistment documents note that he was arrested in March 1958 for intoxication and giving alcohol to a minor.  The charges appear to have been disposed of by payment of a fine.  The applicant was honorably discharged on 22 May 1961 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  The applicant executed his reenlistment on 23 May 1961.  In January 1963 he was convicted by a summary court-martial of being AWOL (absent without leave) between 16 and 17 December 1962.  As a result of the court-martial he was reduced to pay grade E-2.  He remained on active duty until 1 May 1964 when he was honorably discharged under a program which provided for the early separation of soldiers returning from overseas.

On 28 January 1965 the applicant enlisted again and entered active duty. 
In February 1965, following his return to active duty, the applicant was assigned to an artillery unit in Germany.  He was promoted to pay grade E-3 in March 1965.

Between February 1966 and August 1967 the applicant was punished eight times under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  His offenses included being absent without leave and failing to go or be at his appointed place of duty.  As a result of his UCMJ actions he was reduced to pay grade E-2 in May 1966 and to pay grade E-1 in July 1966.  In May 1966 the applicant's unit commander initiated a local bar to reenlistment.  The unit commander noted that the applicant was "a bad influence on members of his platoon because of the obvious apathy" and that his conduct and efficiency ratings were both unsatisfactory.  There is no mention of any medical or alcohol problems.

In October 1967 the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of one day of AWOL on 11 October 1967.  His punishment included restriction and forfeiture.

The applicant returned to the United States in January 1968 and on 13 January 1968 was discharged under a program which permitted the early separation of overseas returnee.  His service was characterized as under honorable conditions and he was issued a general discharge certificate.

There were no medical records available to the Board and the applicant did not provide any.

Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, noted that a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  It stated that a general discharge could be issued if an individual had been convicted of an offense by a general court-martial or had been convicted by more than one special court-martial in the current enlistment period.  The decision to issue a general discharge was discretionary.  

Today, Army Regulation 635-200 states that a soldier being separated upon his ETS or fulfillment of service obligation will be awarded a character of service of honorable unless an entry-level characterization is authorized.

Army Regulation 635-200 also states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

Army Regulation 635-40 states that disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to soldiers whose service is interrupted and they can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service.

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.  There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, that he had any medically disqualifying condition, which warranted referral for disability processing.  As such there is no basis for disability separation or retirement.

2.  It is apparent that the applicant’s separation authority determined that a general discharge most appropriately characterized the applicant’s service.  That determination was well within the separation’s authority at that time.  The applicant’s contention that he was drinking to alleviate pain is not supported by any evidence submitted by the applicant, or contained in records available to the Board, nor would that, in and of itself warrant upgrading the character of his discharge.

3.  The applicant’s previous honorable discharges is also not a basis to upgrade the character of his 1968 discharge.  

4.  There is nothing which mandates that today’s standards be retroactively applied.  As such the Board concludes that in the absence of compelling evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the applicant’s characterization of service it would be inappropriate for the Board to substitute its judgment for that of the commander on the ground at the time who acted well within his authority.  The Board notes that the applicant’s character of service does not deny him any veteran benefits.

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 that 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

__JNS __  __LEM __  __WDP__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003085547	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030619	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.