RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           2 December 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003085572

	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. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. Patrick H. McGann, 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).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to upgrade his discharge from undesirable (UD) to general under honorable conditions (GD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the Board's previous decision was unfair because it did not give proper weight to the fact that his misconduct was the result of a medical condition, alcoholism, for which he did not receive proper treatment by the Army.

3.  The applicant relates that he was twice sentenced to the "Europe Rehabilitation Center" as punishment for his alcohol-induced misconduct.  He adds that this was an "insufficient . . . ineffective treatment for [his] disease."

4.  The applicant feels that he is being punished for having a disease and that, under current standards, makes discharge decisions based on medical judgment and not character assessments.  In effect, the applicant feels that he would not receive a UD under current standards.

5.  The applicant provides:  a letter written by his Representative in Congress; a letter, with attachments, written by the chief executive officer (CEO) of a center for substance abuse treatment; a 21 October 2002 letter from a psychologist; an 18 October 2002 letter from a chemical dependency treatment program; a 16 October 2002 letter from a non-profit mental health, substance abuse, and social services agency; and a 24 October 2002 letter from an alcohol and drug abuse counselor.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR2002066543, on 19 September 2002.

2.  The applicant was involved in various forms of misconduct during his brief military career.  While it appears that alcohol consumption played a role in his misconduct, a medical evaluation on 29 February 1956 did not find him to be an alcoholic, but merely stated that he had a "tendency toward alcoholism."

3.  The applicant indicated that he was twice "sentenced to the Europe Rehabilitation Center."  During the period of the applicant's service, the Army operated two facilities in Germany.  The US Army Europe (USAREUR) Military Stockade was located in Mannheim and was the confinement facility for all of Europe.  The USAREUR Rehabilitation Center was located in Crailsheim and was designed to rehabilitate Soldiers and return them to duty.  Although detailed information on the types of programs offered at Crailsheim is no longer available, the facility was geared more toward retraining and reorienting, than toward confinement.  The applicant would have been offered whatever counseling and character guidance programs were available at the time.

4.  Army Regulation (AR) 600-85, Army Substance Abuse Program, prescribes policies and procedures to implement, administer, and evaluate the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP).  Objectives of the ASAP include:  providing services which are adequate and responsive to the needs of the Army and emphasize alcohol and other drug abuse deterrence, prevention, education, and treatment; implementing alcohol and other drug risk reduction and prevention strategies that respond to potential problems before they jeopardize readiness, productivity, and careers; and restoring to duty those substance-impaired soldiers who have the potential for continued military service.  However, the regulation still provides for the separation of soldiers who, after consultation between the commander and the drug and alcohol rehabilitation team, are determined to be rehabilitation failures.  Further, the regulation does not preclude initiation of separation action for unfitness or misconduct if appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's original review by the Board clearly considered, and rejected, the issue of his alcohol consumption as a mitigating factor in his case.  The Board pointed out that the applicant had twice been sent to the USAREUR Rehabilitation Center without any noticeable improvement in his behavior.  The Board also pointed out that intoxication is not a defense for misconduct.

2.  The applicant's argument that transfer to the USAREUR Rehabilitation Center was an act of punishment is not persuasive.  As previously stated, confinement in USAREUR was accomplished at the Mannheim Military Stockade; rehabilitation and return to duty was accomplished at the Rehabilitation Center at Crailsheim.  Although the specific types of rehabilitative programs available at Crailsheim cannot be stated with certainty, it can be stated that the facility's mission was not confinement, but rehabilitation.  The applicant has provided no evidence to the contrary.

3.  While it is true that the ASAP emphasizes alcohol and drug abuse deterrence, prevention, education, and treatment, it is also true that the Army's overriding goal is improved readiness and, to that end, Soldiers who abuse alcohol or drugs, or who commit misconduct while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, are still subject to discharge.  If discharged for misconduct, an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is still considered appropriate.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__fne___  __mhm___  __phm___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR2002066543, dated 19 September 2002.

			Fred N. Eichorn
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003085572	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20031202	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19560417	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 615-368	
DISCHARGE REASON	A50.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.