MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            23 OCTOBER 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003089591

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Member	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		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 be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was an alcoholic at the time of his military service and has been sober for 20 years.  He states that alcoholism is a disease and that it destroyed his life.  He maintains that if things were different at the time he would have been able to complete his enlistment and make his country and himself proud.  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 enlisted and entered active duty on 31 January 1962.  At the time of his enlistment he was 2 days shy of turning 20 years old, he had 11 years of formal education, and a GT (General Technical) score of 113.  He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and in May 1962 was promoted to pay grade E-2.

His records indicate that in November 1962 he was reassigned to Germany but apparently failed to report as scheduled, resulting in a charge of AWOL (absent without leave) and missing movement.

The applicant was ultimately convicted by two special court-martials for various periods of AWOL and for missing movement.

In September 1963 the applicant's unit commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness.  The commander cited the applicant's "frequent breaches of conduct, AWOL, and desire to get out of the service" as the basis for his recommendation.

A report of psychiatric evaluation noted that the applicant indicated that he became "mad at the stupid things that people do [in] the Army" and that he would not "take orders from some young kid just because he's an E-5."  The evaluating official indicated that the applicant was angry that he was not given a job which exactly suited him and that he had dropped out of high school because a "H.S. [high school] degree wouldn't do me any good."  He noted that the applicant wanted out of the Army and indicated that his father "wants him home no matter what the type of discharge."  The evaluating official concluded that the applicant was unwilling to expend any effort on behalf of any organization or person, and that there "was no gross defects of orientation, intelligence, or judgement."  He made no mention of any alcohol problems or abuse.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed administrative separation action, consulted with counsel, and waived his attendant rights.  In the applicant's acknowledgement statement, he also indicated that he understood the ramifications of receiving an undesirable discharge.

The commander's recommendation was approved and on 3 October 1963 the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions and was issued an undesirable discharge certificate.  At the time of his separation he had completed 1 year, 4 months, and 18 days of creditable service and accumulated more than 100 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, provided the authority for discharging enlisted personnel for unfitness.  Separation action was to be taken when the commander determined that the best interest of the service would be served by eliminating the individual concerned and: reasonable attempts to rehabilitate or develop the individual to be a satisfactory soldier were unlikely to succeed; or rehabilitation was impracticable.  Unfitness included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civil authorities and an established pattern of shirking.  The regulation further provides that: "the setting of arbitrary standards, such a certain number of trials by courts-martial, as a prerequisite to administrative elimination as a test of 'effective rehabilitation' violates the concept of individual evaluation."  If, after examination by a medical officer or psychiatrist, there appears to exist mental or physical disability that is the cause of unfitness, a board of medical officers will be convened.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate; however, in unusual circumstances, a general or honorable discharge was authorized, as directed by the convening authority.

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 applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.  His contention that his use of alcohol somehow justified or excused is behavior is without foundation.  

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.  While the applicant’s desire to for his country to be proud of him is noted, it does not outweigh the seriousness of his conduct while in the military and does not provide an adequate basis upon which the Board would grant relief at this time.
4.  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

__JHL __  __MKP __  __AAO __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003089591	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20031023	
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.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.