MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           26 March 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001064760

	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	
	MR. Lee Cates		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs		Member	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		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 under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to fully honorable.

APPLICANT STATES: That, at the time of his service, he suffered from alcoholism.  He did not know at the time that his family had an alcohol problem.  Upon leaving the service, he has been treated for this disease.  He provides four letters of support.

The letters of support reflect his honorable post service conduct.

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

On 2 December 1985, he enlisted in the Army.  He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13E (Fire Direction Specialist).

During the period 31 March to 28 July 1986, he served in Europe.

During the period 18 April to 2 May 1986, he was formally counseled on six occasions for his failure to obey orders, for being disrespectful to superior officers, for being disorderly, for making false official statements and for being drunk and disorderly.

During the period 24 May to 22 July 1986, he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on five occasions for his failure to go to his appointed place of duty, for disobeying lawful orders, for the wrongful use of provoking words, for breaking restriction, for being absent without leave, and for dishonorably failing to pay just debts.

The applicant did not exceed pay grade E-1 during his service.

On 18 June 1986, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to recommend him for discharge under chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance based on his substandard performance, repeated counseling by the chain of command, lack of motivation or positive attitudes toward responsibilities and no respect for authority.  He was advised of his rights.

On 18 June 1986, the applicant, with counsel, acknowledged the commander’s intent, requested counsel and indicated that statements in his own behalf would not be submitted.

On 25 June 1986, a Mental Status Evaluation cleared the applicant for separation.  He elected not to receive a separation physical examination.

On 9 July 1986, the appropriate separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the applicant be issued an under honorable conditions discharge, with a General Discharge Certificate.

On 29 July 1986, he was discharged with a characterization of service of under honorable conditions and issued a General Discharge Certificate.  His separation document indicates he had 7 months and 27 days of creditable service with one day of lost time.   

On 16 December 1998, the Army Discharge Review Board found his discharge to be proper and equitable and denied his request for an upgrade.

Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

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 unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier. 

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 evidence of record indicates that the applicant was properly discharged and he was medically and physically fit for retention at the time of his separation. The applicant has not submitted any probative evidence to the contrary.

2.  No medical evidence has been presented by the applicant to demonstrate an injustice in the medical treatment received in service, or that his discharge and characterization was not proper.

3.  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.

4.  The Board has noted the letters of support; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating to overcome the characterization of his service.  His contention concerning alcoholism has been noted; however, his alcohol consumption does not excuse his misconduct.

5.  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

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

_dsj____  _gdp____  _reb____   DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064760	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020326	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.