MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           20 November 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001063314

	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. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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:  In effect, that his discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that at the time of his discharge relevant factors was not considered.  The applicant believes, that his drug and alcohol abuse and his mental and medical problems were not considered when he was discharged. 

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

He was born on 30 November 1953.  He completed 11 years of formal education. On 4 December 1974, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 2 years.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B10 (Field Artillery Crewman).  

On 17 March 1975, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for dereliction in the performance of duty.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $50.00 pay, 
5 days restriction and extra duty. 

On 12 June and on 18 June 1975, the applicant accepted an NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, for being absent from his place of duty.  His punishment included forfeitures, restrictions, extra duties and a reduction to pay grade E-1.  

On 23 June 1975, the applicant was barred from reenlistment.  The applicant’s bar was based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities and his stated desire to get out of the military.  

The applicant’s record indicates that he was counseled on numerous occasions for his poor attitude, for his frequent tardiness and for misconduct.

On 14 July 1975, the applicant was given a rehabilitative transfer.

On 11 November 1975, the applicant accepted an NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for disorderly conduct while being apprehended and after apprehension by military police.  His imposed punishment was 14 days restriction and a forfeiture of $93.00 pay (suspended for 90 days).  

On 26 January 1976, the applicant accepted an NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for possessing (an unspecified but apparently a small amount of) marijuana.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $84.00 pay, 14 days restriction and extra duty.

On 2 February 1976, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.  The physical makes no note of any drug or alcohol problems and the applicant makes no mention of any such problems on his Report of Medical History.

On 5 February 1976, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and was found to be mentally competent, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  The applicant was also found to be mentally capable of understanding and participating in board proceedings.  

On 25 February 1976, the commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.

On 27 February 1976, the applicant acknowledged notification of the action.  He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived personal appearance before such a board and waived representation by counsel.  He submitted a statement in his own behalf, wherein he stated that all his Article 15’s were for minor offenses, that he had only 8 months left in the service and that he tried to avoid trouble.

On 10 March 1976, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant receive a discharge UOTHC.

On 15 March 1976, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unfitness with a discharge UOTHC.  He had completed 1 year, 3 months and 12 days of creditable active service and had no lost time. 

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for misconduct, and provides, in pertinent part, that individuals involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for misconduct.

On 24 November 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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 this requirement.

2.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by this Board.  However, the medical evidence of record indicates that the applicant was medically and mentally fit for retention at the time of his separation.  He has submitted no probative medical evidence to the contrary.

3.  The applicant’s allegation regarding his addiction to drugs and alcohol has been noted, but was not found to be mitigating.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant received an Article 15, for a small amount of marijuana.  There is no further evidence of drug or alcohol problems in his record.  

4.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of service determination at the time of discharge was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.

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

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

__jlp___  __mhm___  __rks___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001063314	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011120	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19760315	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200.Ch 13  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.5000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.