MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:          

	BOARD DATE:              5 April 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:     AR1999030752

	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.

	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 his ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity with alcohol, that his personal problems impaired his ability to serve and that he had a prior honorable discharge prior to reenlisting.  He also states that his record of promotions show that that he was generally a good service member until he was transferred to Germany where he started drinking and using drugs.  He further states that his average conduct and efficiency marks were good until his drinking and drug problems.  He feels that if he had not been drinking or using drugs, he would have not done the thing he did.  He also feels that if he could get an upgrade of his discharge, he could get a better job, schooling and assistance with his problem.  He goes on to state that his use of drugs and alcohol impaired his ability to serve, that the punishment he received was too severe compared with today’s standards and that his chain of command could have assisted him.  He concludes by stating that had he enrolled in an Alcohol Anonymous Program (AAP) he would have received the assistance he need and that he is better now since he attends those programs.

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

The applicant entered active duty on 22 August 1969 as a lineman.  He served in Korea and continued to serve until he was honorably discharged on 13 August 1970 in order to reenlist.  He reenlisted on 14 August 1970.

Between August 1970 and March 1973, the applicant accepted seven 
nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for instances of failure to be at his appointed place of duty, for assault, for disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer and a commissioned officer, for participation in a breach of the peace,
for the wrongful use of provoking gestures, for being disrespectful in language toward a noncommissed officer, and for violation of a lawful general regulation.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, a reduction to pay grade E-1, restriction, extra duty and correctional custody for 30 days.

The applicant was barred from reenlistment on 29 December 1972 for the aforementioned offenses.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 21 March 1973 and was found qualified for separation.

The applicant underwent a mental evaluation on 21 March 1973, which determined that he could distinguish right from wrong and that he possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative or judicial proceedings.

On 4 April 1973, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness.  He based his recommendation on the applicant’s habits and traits of character manifested by repeated commission of petty offenses and habitual shirking.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant requested a personal appearance and consideration of his case by a board of officers.  He also requested representation by counsel and elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.  He acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued.

On 27 April 1973 he was ordered to appear before a board of officers on 22 May 1973 to determine if he should be discharged from the service due to unfitness.
The applicant appeared before the board and was represented by counsel.  He elected not to testify in his own behalf.

The Board recommended that he be discharged from the service because of unfitness and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  The appropriate authority approved the findings and recommendations of the board of officers on 29 May 1973.

The applicant was discharged on 11 June 1973 under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness based on his frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities and habitual shirking.  He had a total of 3 years,
9 months and 20 days of creditable serve.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge with its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the policy and prescribes the procedure for administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, in effect at that time, applied to separation for unfitness and unsuitability.  At that time, paragraph 13-5a(1) provided for the separation of individuals for unfitness (frequents incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities).  When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was issued by the separation 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 Board noted the applicant contentions; however, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contentions.  While the Board is empathetic, the applicant’s personal problems are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

2.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and VA benefits.

3.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

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 the aforementioned 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:

RVO____  SK______  LE_____  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030752	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000405	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19730611	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200  C, 13	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.