MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            26 April 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999034487

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		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 a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his lack of education, the immaturity of being 17 years of age and alcoholism attributed to his discharge.  He also contends that his discharge should be upgraded because there was no treatment available for treatment of alcoholism and he was not afforded any.  In support of his application he submits copies of his records.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  In effect, that the applicant’s alcoholism should be considered under current standards and requests that the Board resolve any errors or injustices in favor of the applicant.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri which destroyed millions of service records.  However, the records provided by the applicant show:

He enlisted at Fort Preble, Maine on 9 September 1948 for a period of 3 years at 17 years of age and he had 8 years of education.

During the period 27 April 1949 to 28 June 1949, company punishment was imposed against him on at least five occasions for being drunk in camp, being AWOL for 5 days, drinking in a public place, and twice for being absent from formation. 

On 27 July 1949, while serving as an infantryman in the 18th Infantry Regiment in Grafenwohr, Germany, the applicant was notified that he would appear before a board of officers who would determine if he should be discharged from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 based on habits and traits of character that rendered his retention in the service as undesirable.  The notice cited the applicant’s inability to absorb training, being continually drunk, being AWOL, his inattention to duty, his incorrigible attitude towards the Army, and stubborn defiance to any form of discipline.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification, elected to decline representation by counsel, and elected not to call witnesses in his own behalf.

He also underwent a physical and mental examination and was determined to be normal.  The physician determined that he had no disqualifying mental or physical defects and opined that reassignment would not accomplish significant rehabilitative results.

The applicant appeared before the board of officers on 29 July 1949 in which statements were submitted and testimony given to the effect that the applicant had served under two platoon commanders and three squad commanders and all attempts to make him a satisfactory soldier had failed.  He was repeatedly involved in petty offenses for which trial by courts-martial was not warranted, he had company punishment imposed on seven occasions, was a bad influence on other members of the squad and was a constant trouble-maker.  Testimony was also given to the effect that the applicant had been disrespectful towards a commissioned officer on at least two occasions and had to be confined in the guardhouse.

After reviewing the evidence and testimony, the board of officers found that the applicant demonstrated habits and traits of character that rendered his retention in the service as undesirable and recommended that he be discharged with an undesirable discharge.

The convening authority approved the findings and recommendations on 23 August 1949.

Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 5 October 1949 under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 for unfitness.  He had served 1 year and 26 days of total active service and had 5 days of lost time due to AWOL.

There is no indication in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel by reason of unfitness.  That regulation provided for the discharge of individuals who had demonstrated their unfitness by giving evidence of habits and traits of character manifested by misconduct.  An undesirable discharge 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.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate even given the limited information contained in the available records.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and appear to be without merit.  Although the applicant did have some alcohol related incidents during his relatively short period of service, the available evidence shows that the applicant’s misconduct was not limited to alcohol related incidents and indicates that he simply chose not to conform to basic military discipline or a regimented way of life.  Accordingly, his contentions are not sufficiently mitigating when compared to his undistinguished record of service during such a short amount of time.

4.  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.

5.  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

__sk____  __kak___  ___clg___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034487	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/04/26	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1949/10/05	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR615-368	
DISCHARGE REASON	731	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  731 	A79.00/UNFIT – HABITS AND TRAITS	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.