MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION   

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:          21 November 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002077524    

	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. Victoria A. Donaldson		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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 earlier request to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to upgrade his discharge from undesirable to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his acts of indiscipline were due to the fact that he was young and immature and because he was young and immature he became alcohol dependent.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the ABCMR's previous consideration of the applicant's case in Docket Number AR2000039126 on 8 September 2000.

The applicant submitted a self-authored statement; a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).

The applicant submitted a thank you letter from Beaver Dam Elementary School for explaining his profession and the safety aspects of his profession to the students.

The applicants submitted a character reference letter from a reverend who describes the applicant as a "Godly young man" who is goal oriented, dedicated to rising above the minimum expectations to achieve maximum results, committed, loyal, trust-worthy, and prompt.

The applicant submitted a character reference letter from his mother who describes the applicant as a loving son and wonderful brother before he went into the Army.  The letter further states that the applicant drank alcohol during the day and roamed the streets at night and that he was violent after his return from Vietnam.

The applicant submitted a character reference letter from his place of employment which states that he has worked for the company for approximately 9 years and that he is one of the finest employees.  The letter further states that the applicant has always performed his duties with total professionalism.

The applicant’s submissions are new evidence which will be considered by the ABCMR.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; sexual perversion including but not limited to lewd and lascivious acts, indecent 

exposure, indecent acts with or assault on a child; drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming drugs or marijuana; an established pattern of shirking; and an established pattern of dishonorable failure to pay just debts or to contribute adequate support to dependents (including failure to comply with orders, decrees or judgments).  When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

The regulation provides guidance for reconsideration requests that are received more than one year after the Board’s original consideration or after the Board has already reconsidered the case.  In such cases, the staff of the Board will review the request to determine if substantial relevant evidence has been submitted that shows fraud, mistake in law, mathematical miscalculation, manifest error, or if there exists substantial relevant new evidence discovered contemporaneously with or within a short time after the Board’s original decision.  If the staff finds such evidence, the case will be resubmitted to the Board.  If no such evidence is found, the application will be returned without action.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

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.  Notwithstanding the applicant's contention that he became alcohol dependent while stationed overseas.  There is no evidence, and the applicant has provided no evidence, that he suffered from or received treatment for alcohol dependency during his military service or that alcohol dependency was the cause of his indiscipline and subsequent separation.  Therefore, this contention is without merit.

2.  The Board noted applicant's contention that his acts of indiscipline were due to the fact that he was young and immature.  Evidence shows that the applicant received his first NJP while attending AIT after his eighteenth birthday and continued to receive NJPs until after he reached age twenty.  Therefore, this contention is without merit.

3.  The Board reviewed the applicant's record of service and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

4.  The Board reviewed the applicant's record of service which included nine nonjudicial punishments and one special court-martial conviction.  As a result the Board determined that his record of service was not satisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to a general discharge.

5.  The Board considered the applicant's contentions regarding his post service achievements and conduct.  However, good post service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a discharge.  

6.  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.  The type of discharge and reason for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

7.  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 unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

8.  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.

9.  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

__FNE __  __LE____  ___TL___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002077524	
SUFFIX		
RECON	This applies only to ADRB	
DATE BOARDED		
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION		
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.