MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:          4 November 2003                    
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003087942

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		Member	
	Mr. Antonio Uribe		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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to that of a general discharge under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  In a letter to the Board that, in essence, he was not separated as a result of a court-martial conviction.  He was young and immature and his problems started when he was assigned to Germany and he began to use alcohol and drugs to escape depression.  Caught with drugs, he was convicted by a court-martial and sentenced to confinement at the US Army Retraining Brigade (USARB), Fort Riley, Kansas.  At Fort Riley, he foolishly signed administrative separation documents when he was offered the opportunity.  He has since suffered from self-humiliation for the stupid and foolish decision that he made over 25 years ago.  He adds that he did not understand the impact of receiving a UD.  He pleads with the Board to grant him an upgrade so that he will be able to hold his head up when someone asks if he is a veteran. He feels ashamed and remorseful for the mistakes that he made.

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

That on 8 February 1974, at age 19, he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for 2 years.  He completed the training requirements and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).  On 10 July 1974, he was assigned to Germany.  

On 9 January 1975, nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), was imposed against the applicant for being disrespectful in language towards a sergeant by using threatening language towards him on 15 October 1974; for operating a privately-owned vehicle in a reckless manner by failing to maintain control of the vehicle causing it to strike a concrete guard on 5 November 1974; and for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed on 24 October 1974.  His punishment included the forfeiture of $100 pay per month for 2 months, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction.

On 22 April 1975, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of wrongfully using Mandrax, a methaqualone-based drug and of stealing two audio speakers of a value of $260, the property of another soldier.  He was sentenced to confinement with hard labor for 6 months, forfeiture of $229 pay per month for 6 months, and reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1.  On 7 May 1975, only that portion of the sentence that provided for confinement at hard labor for 4 months, forfeiture of $229 pay per month for 4 months, and reduction to pay grade E-1 was approved (suspended until 21 October 1975).

The applicant was in confinement at the USARB from 20 June-24 July 1975.  Both his conduct and performance were rated unsatisfactory and the USARB staff recommendation was that he not be returned to duty.

On 15 July 1975, a medical examination determined the applicant was qualified for separation.  

On an unknown date, the applicant's unit commander at USARB officially notified him that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unfitness, with a UD.  The applicant was informed of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him.  On 17 July 1975, he consulted with legal counsel and waived a personal appearance and the consideration of his case by an administrative separation board.  He also acknowledged he understood the ramifications of receiving a UD.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 22 July 1975, the separation authority approved separation with a UD.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that, on 24 July 1975, he was separated under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unfitness, involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, with a UD.  He had completed 1 year, 2 months and 8 days of active military service.  He also had 92 days of lost time due to being in confinement.

Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unfitness and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when the member is involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  A UD was generally 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.  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.

2.  The applicant's conduct was inconsistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and his overall quality of service does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  

3.  The Board noted the applicant's explanation of using alcohol and drugs to escape depression; however, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief without committing the misconduct that led to the separation action under review.

4.  The Board has also taken into consideration the applicant’s contention that he was young and immature; however, the applicant met entrance qualification standards, to include age.  Further, the Board found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.

5.  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

__fne___  __gjw___  __au____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003087942	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20031104	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19750724	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 13	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.