MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           7 June 2000                            
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999032580

	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	
	Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller .		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		Member	
	Mr. James P. Stueve		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 discharge under other than honorable conditions  (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he lied about his age, that he was only 
16 years old at the time of his enlistment.  He became an alcoholic in Germany and was not offered any kind of rehabilitation.  He continues to say; that he was young, stupid and drunk, that until about 8 years ago he was still a drunk.  Shortly after being discharged he believes that he applied for an upgrade of his discharge, however, he cannot remember because he was drunk.  He believes that if anyone had taken an interest in him and tried to help him, he would have become an asset to the Army, but that did not happen.  He believes that some leniency in upgrading his discharge isn’t too much to ask.

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

The applicant’s military record shows that he was born on 11 September 1942.   On 10 November 1960, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States for a period of 2 years.  His military occupational specialty was 112.00 (Heavy Weapons Infantryman).  On 19 April 1961, the applicant was honorably discharged.  On 20 April 1961, the applicant reenlisted for a period of 4 years.  

On 20 July 1963, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failure to repair.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2.

On 27 August 1963, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 10 to 11 August 1963 and for the wrongful appropriation of a ½ ton truck valued at about $4358.00, property of the United States Government.  He was sentenced to a reduction to pay grade E-1, confinement at hard labor for 6 months and a forfeiture of $30.00 pay per month for 6 months.

Between October 1963 and April 1964, the applicant accepted three NJP’s
under Article 15, UCMJ, for missing bed check, for being intoxicated while on duty, for the illegal possession of alcoholic beverages and for creating a disturbance at a military club.  His punishment included restrictions and extra duties.  

On 16 March 1965, the applicant was convicted by a SPCM of being AWOL from 11 December 1964 to 18 February 1965.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 3 months and a forfeiture of $75.00 pay per month for 6 months.

On 13 July 1965, the applicant again was convicted by a SPCM of two specifications of being AWOL from 20 March to 14 April 1965 and from 16 April to 26 June 1965.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and a forfeiture of $56.00 pay per month for 6 months.  

On 20 July 1965, a mental and a physical status evaluation found the applicant qualified for separation.  He was considered mentally and physically competent to participate in board proceedings.

On 22 July 1965, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness, (frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civilian authorities).  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him.  The applicant waived personal appearance, consideration, and representation by counsel before a board of officers.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but declined to do so.  

On 27 July 1965, the Commanding General approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.  On 30 July 1965, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness with a discharge UOTHC.  He had completed 3 years, 6 months and 16 days of creditable active service and 268 days of lost time. 

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect, provided, in pertinent part, the policies, procedures, and guidance for the elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unfit for further military service.  However, at the time of the discharge a discharge UOTHC was normally 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 the this requirement.

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

3.  The applicant's contention that he was young, naive and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board notes that the applicant was almost 21 years of age at the time of his first AWOL.
  
4.  The applicant alleges that he lied about his age and that he was only 16 years old, when he was inducted into the Army.  The applicant’s military record does not support his allegation, nor has the applicant submitted any evidence in support of his allegation.  Alcohol abuse does not excuse misconduct.

5.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

__mkp___  __esc___  __jps___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999032580	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000607	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19650730	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-208 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.