Title: 2
Author: WoodsHN

ABCMR Proceedings (cont)                     AC83-09508A

2.  The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he had a drinking problem while he was in the service, which eventually led to his discharge.  He further states that his problem was that he would go out after duty hours or on pass and would drink until he had enough (too much) to drink and could not return to his company.  Consequently, he would be reported as AWOL and punished until he had finally been reduced to the pay grade of E-1.  He also states that he did not get into any other trouble other than drinking too much and being AWOL.  He goes on to state that he attained the rank of E-7 and attended two NCO academies while in the service.  He continues by stating that he is a recovering alcoholic who has enjoyed many years of sobriety (since 1975) and who has dedicated himself to helping other native Americans overcome their chemical dependencies.  Furthermore, considering the circumstances, he believes that his discharge was too harsh when compared to today’s standards.  In support of his application he submits about a dozen letters of support and training indicating his work with the American Indian Chemical Dependency Programs in Minnesota.     

4.  The applicant’s military records were partially destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973.  Information contained herein was obtained from limited reconstructed personnel records.

5.  The applicant is a native American from Minnesota who enlisted on 2 July 1952 and served as an infantryman until he was honorably discharged on 25 September 1955 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. He reenlisted on the following day, 26 September 1955, for a period of 6 years.

6.  On 6 August 1959 he was discharged under other than honorable conditions for unfitness, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.  His Report of Separation        (DD Form 214) indicates that he had 184 days of lost time, of which 94 days were for being AWOL.  He had served 6 years, 6 months, and 3 days of total active service.

7.  His DD Form 214 also indicates that he attended two NCO academies and that he served 2 years, 9 months, and 17 days of overseas service.  He was awarded the United Nations Service Medal which is indicative of service in support of the United Nations action in Korea.

8.  His DD Form 214 also indicates that all of periods of AWOL (four periods) occurred between 7 July 1958 and 30 April 1959, a 9-month period.

9.  The letters of support submitted by the applicant with his application indicate that prior to February 1975, the applicant’s life was characterized by alcoholism in it’s late stages.  He underwent detoxification in February 1975 and participated in an outpatient training program sponsored by the North American Indian Fellowship Center.  He successfully completed the outpatient training and in September 1976 he entered the University of Minnesota Alcoholism Training Program.  He successfully completed the program and returned to International Falls, Minnesota as a full-time counselor director for the adult chemical dependency program at the Indian center.  The statements also indicate that the applicant is a respected member of the community who is actively involved in his community, and has been publicly recognized by the State of Minnesota for his work in chemical dependency programs.

10.  Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel having undesirable habits and traits of character. Paragraph 2 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel where there was evidence of an antisocial or amoral trend, chronic alcoholism, drug addiction, pathological lying, or misconduct.

11.  Effective 14 April 1959, Army Regulation 635-209 authorized a discharge under honorable conditions by reason of unsuitability for further military service for those individuals who evidenced noneffective duty performance due to chronic alcoholism or addiction to alcohol.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  It appears, based on the available evidence, that the applicant developed a severe drinking problem during the last 9 months of his service that was most likely the root of his undesirable habits and traits of character (AWOL), and eventually led to his discharge.

2.  The Board notes that just prior to his discharge, a regulation was published which provided for the issuance of an honorable or general discharge for individuals who evidenced noneffective duty performance due to chronic alcoholism or addiction to alcohol.

3.  The applicant’s post-service accomplishments do, in fact, highlight, by contrast, the conduct he exhibited during that brief period of his enlistment when he became alcohol dependent.  His conduct since his discharge appears to be more indicative of his true character, and to continue to stigmatize him with an undesirable discharge is unduly harsh. 

4.  Although his acts of misconduct are not condoned, his offenses were not of a serious criminal nature and appear to have been related to his abuse of alcohol.

5.  Therefore, it would be appropriate and proper to upgrade his discharge to a general discharge.  A fully honorable discharge is not considered appropriate because it is conditioned upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty throughout a specific term of service.

6.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was separated from the service with a General Discharge Certificate on 6 August 1959.

2.  That the Department issue to the individual concerned a General Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 6 August 1959, in lieu of the undesirable discharge of the same date now held by him.

3.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

		                           
		        CHAIRPERSON