PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            4 May 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999033639

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun
Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Director
Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. James P. Stueve		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter 		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. 

3.  The applicant states in effect that he is a 72 year old who is in very poor health and he has been diagnosed to have only 6 months to live.  His UD is a secret that he has kept for many years.  He makes this request in an effort to bring some closure to this issue before he expires.  In support of his request he submits his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), and letters written in his behalf by a member of the Georgia, House of Representatives and a member of the Clerk of the Court of Jesup, Georgia.  The above referenced letters show that he went into the ministry and since that time he has been an outstanding citizen and a devoted public servant. He has dedicated his life to helping improve the life of those around him.  He gives unselfishly to the service of others.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that prior to the enlistment under review 
he served honorably in the Army of the United States from 21 September 
1950-20 June 1952.  He also served honorably in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) from 7 September 1953-7 September 1955.

5.  On 14 September 1955, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 6 years.  He served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 540 (Duty Soldier).

6.  On 27 September 1955, he was found guilty by a summary court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 24-25 September 1955.  He was sentenced to forfeiture of $10.00 pay.

7.  The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of 
the Uniform Code of Military Justice on 14 March 1956 for being AWOL from his unit from 8-9 March 1956.  On 11 October 1956, he received NJP for failure to repair and for failure to report to his place of duty.  His punishments included reduction from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-3 and reduction from pay grade
E-3 to pay grade E-2.

8.  On 2 April 1957, he received NJP for being intoxicated to the point that he was unable to perform his duties.  He was sentenced to 14 days extra duty.

9.  On 9 August 1957, he was found guilty by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 17-28 June 1957.  He was sentenced to forfeiture of $5.00 pay per month for 6 months.

10.  On 18 November 1957, the applicant was transferred to Maynard Quarter- master Test Activity, Maynard Massachusetts for temporary duty from Fort Lee, Virginia.

11.  On 13 January 1958, he was found guilty by a summary court-martial of being AWOL from 5-7 January 1958.  He was sentenced to 30 days restriction.

12.  On 17 February 1958, he was found guilty by the Civil Court of Berlin, New Hampshire, of disorderly conduct.  He was fined as a result of having participated in a brawl in a local restaurant.  Further evidence of record shows that during off duty hours he overindulged in the consumption of alcohol to the point that he was unable to perform his duties.  Further, the available records show that he chronically abused alcohol.

13.	On 7 March 1958, he was found guilty by a summary court-martial of 
careless discharge of a pistol while at a test site.  His sentence included 
30 days restriction and forfeiture of $35.00 pay.

14.  On 10 April 1958, the applicant was returned to his parent unit at Fort Lee because of the conduct that resulted in disciplinary action and for jeopardizing the relations of the military with the local community.

15.  Additionally, evidence of record shows that on an unknown date in May 1958, he appeared before a local board of officers convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, to determine whether he should be discharged.

16.  He went AWOL on 1 June 1958 and remained AWOL until civil authorities apprehended him on 22 June 1958.  The proceedings of this first board were disapproved because they did not include the 1 June-22 June 1958 AWOL charge.  The proceedings of this first board of officers hearing are not a matter of record.

17.  Upon return to military control, on an unknown date he was convicted by a 
special court-martial for the above period of AWOL.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and forfeiture of $30.00 pay per month for 
6 months.

18.  On 14 July 1958, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation by a professionally trained neuropsychiatrist.  The diagnosis was that he had no psychiatric disease.  The neuropsychiatrist further stated that he knew the nature and quality of his acts and that he was mentally responsible.  His mental status was within normal limits.

19.  On 21 July 1958, the applicant was notified that a new (second) local board of officers would meet to determine his suitability for retention or discharge from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for habits and traits of character which made retention in the military service undesirable.   

20.  On 3 September 1958, he submitted a statement in which he stated that “he had been afforded an opportunity of requesting counsel.  However, he did not desire to have counsel represent him at the hearing.”

21.  After being properly notified, the applicant appeared before his second board without counsel on 6 October 1958. The board of officers determined that he demonstrated undesirable habits or traits of character evidenced by a record of AWOL.  The Board recommended that he be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness with a UD. 

22.  On 13 October 1958, the final approval separation authority approved the recommendation. 

23.  On 22 October 1958, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of 
Army Regulation 635-208, for unfitness with a UD.  He had completed 2 years, 
8 months and 29 days of active military service on the enlistment under review.  He had also completed 1 year and 9 months of prior active military service and
2 years, 11 months and 17 days of USAR service.  He also 130 days lost time due to being AWOL and in confinement. 

24.  Evidence of record indicates the applicant applied to the Army Discharge 
Review Board in October 1999, which was past that board’s 15-year statute of limitation.

25.  Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel determined to be unfit for further service by reason of habits and traits of character manifested by an antisocial or amoral trend, chronic alcoholism, criminalism, drug addiction, pathological lying, or misconduct.  A UD was considered appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.

2.  Further, the Board does not condone the applicant’s actions of misconduct. 
However, the Board noted that the applicant had an alcohol abuse problem and the available records do not show that he was referred to any type of program for treatment.  As a matter of fact, during the time in which he served the Army did not have an effective alcohol rehabilitation program. 

3.  Additionally, the Board concluded that since he departed the military, he has become a minister and a dedicated public servant and as a result, he has spent his life trying to improve the lives of others.  
4.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking cognizance of the time which has elapsed since the applicant’s discharge from service, the Board determined that the interest of justice would best be served by changing the applicant’s characterization of service to a general discharge under honorable conditions.  The reason for discharge should not be changed.  The Board takes this action as an exception to policy, in the nature of clemency.  The Board concludes that the purpose of the UD has been served.

5.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected, but only, as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

a.	by showing that the UD issued to the individual concerned on 
22 October 1958, is void and without force or effect;

	b.  by showing that the individual concerned was separated from the service with a general discharge, under honorable conditions on 22 October 1958; and

c.  by issuing the individual concerned a General Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 22 October 1958, in lieu of the UD of the same date now held by him.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

________  ________  ________  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__lls____  __jps____  __cjs____  DENY APPLICATION

		__Luther L. Santiful___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR199033639	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000504	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19581022	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	ARAR635-208 	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness	
BOARD DECISION	PARTIAL GRANT 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.0133	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.