MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           29 July 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002080746

	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	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy, Jr.		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 general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was suffering from alcoholism at the time of separation.  He has been alcohol-free since he entered a detoxification program and lived at a halfway house for 6 months in 1982.  He believes that alcoholism is a disease and that his illness should be taken into consideration in the upgrade of his discharge.  The applicant submits in support of his request a character reference letter from a mental health/addictions counselor.  The counselor states that he did not work with the applicant professionally, but he has known the applicant and his family for the past 16 years.  He is knowledgeable that, 20 years ago, the applicant entered a residential treatment program and that he has been sober since that time.  He knows the applicant has been steadily employed; he has a stable family life; he is a dedicated husband and father and productive member of his community and church.  The applicant has a beautiful home and he has helped others in the process of recovery from addiction.

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

That on 22 September 1977, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 16E (Hawk Fire Control Crewman).  On 18 November 1977, he was assigned to Fort Bliss, Texas, for advanced individual training (AIT).  

On 8 December 1977, while attending AIT, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for willfully disobeying a lawful order given by a noncommissioned officer.  His punishment included the forfeiture of $50.00 pay per month for 1 month and 7 days of restriction and extra duty.

The applicant completed the training requirements and he was awarded MOS 16E and assigned to Germany on 27 January 1978.

On 6 April 1978, the applicant underwent both a medical examination and a mental status evaluation that determined he was qualified for separation.

On 20 April 1978, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)), with a GD.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant's repeated negligence in the performance of his duties; his unwilling attitude towards learning his assigned duties; his failure to meet the standards or expectations of the unit; and his lack of productiveness and motivation.  
On 21 April 1978, the commander indicated in the recommendation for the applicant's separation that the applicant had been counseled on ten separate occasions.  The counseling statements are no longer contained in the applicant's record.  The commander also stated that the primary reason for his recommendation was the applicant was unable to adapt socially and emotionally. 

The applicant's records do not contain a statement that shows he consulted with legal counsel.  However, his records do contain a statement, dated 21 April 1978, that shows he acknowledged notification and voluntarily consented to the discharge.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

On 26 April 1978, the approval authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be issued a GD.  The approval authority also states that he personally spoke with the applicant and he was convinced the applicant was unsuitable for the military. 

On 8 May 1978, the applicant was separated with a GD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (EDP).  He had completed a total of 7 months and 17 days of active military service and he had no recorded lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect, at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-31 of this regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of those individuals who failed to maintain acceptable standards for retention or for those determined to be unable to adapt socially and/or emotionally to military life.  Under this regulation, a GD or an HD was considered appropriate.  Further, the regulation then in effect stipulated that a GD would be issued if the commander initiating the action for separation recommended it and the soldier had the opportunity to receive legal counsel.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), 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.  Although, the available records do not contain a statement indicating the applicant received legal counsel, he would have consulted with legal counsel prior to signing the statement that he voluntarily signed consenting to discharge under the provisions of chapter 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (EDP).  The Board presumes administrative regularity and the applicant has provided no information that would indicate the contrary.   
3.  There are no medical records available that indicate the applicant had an alcohol abuse problem while he was in the military.  Likewise, none of the applicant's separation paperwork cites drunkenness as one of the reasons for the contemplated separation.  However, the applicant, as a soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's alcohol abuse policies.  If in fact, he abused alcohol, he knowingly risked his military career and diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  

4.  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

___mkp__  __wtm___  __teo___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002080746	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030729	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19780508	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 5	
DISCHARGE REASON	A40.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.4000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.