MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            3 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999032662

	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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. 		Chairperson	
	Mr. John H. Kern		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		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:  Reconsideration of his previous appeal to correct his records by upgrading his discharge to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was an alcoholic at the time of discharge, that he quit drinking in 1990 and has been sober since.
  
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a Memorandum of Consideration (MOC) prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 
6 October 1993 (COPY ATTACHED).

 The applicant’s contention constitutes new argument that requires Board consideration.

The Manual for Courts-Martial, as then in effect, and the edition currently effective, both state that voluntary intoxication not amounting to legal insanity, whether caused by alcohol or drugs, is not an excuse for an offense committed while in that condition.

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.  Intoxication, even habitual intoxication is not an excuse for misconduct.  That this standard of conduct is accepted, not only by the military but by society as a whole, is demonstrated by the fact that drunk drivers are held legally responsible for the results of their behavior even though they are shown to be alcoholic.  

2.   However, problem drinking may mitigate the final outcome in some cases.  Especially, when the individual has amended the previous behavior. 

3.  The Board can and does apply post service considerations as a factor in assessing the appropriateness of relief.  However, in this case there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the applicant’ contentions. 

4.  The Board’s prior decision, to deny the applicant’s appeal based on the failure to file a timely request, was made only after all aspects of the case had been considered and it had been determined that there was no basis to recommend corrective action.  Normally, the Board does not deny an application simply because it was not submitted within 3 years.  The MOC does not specifically state that the merits were considered.  However, the display of the 

pertinent details of the record of service indicates that they were.  Had the Board determined that error or injustice existed it undoubtedly would have recommended relief in spite of the failure to submit an application within the
3-year time limit.

5.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

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.

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__RVO__  ___JHK__  ___EWL_  DENY APPLICATION

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

	AR19990032662

RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000503	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19771012	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 ch 13	
DISCHARGE REASON	A50.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A93.19	
2.	A93.21	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.