APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration of his previous request to correct his records by upgrading his discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that alcoholism impaired his ability to make reasonable decisions and judgments and that he was never given the chance to be rehabilitated.  The failure to timely file should have been waived for the same reason.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum of consideration (MOC) prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 17 May 1995 (COPY ATTACHED).

The contention that he was impaired due to his alcohol addiction and was never offered rehabilitation constitutes new argument.  The applicant submits his own statements in a letter in support of his request.

Evidence of record shows that the applicant was transferred on numerous occasions as a method of rehabilitation subsequent to counseling wherein the applicant expressed remorse for his disciplinary actions and accepted the transfer as rehabilitation.  The commander’s recommendation of discharge for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 was ultimately based on the applicant’s frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civilian authorities.

The Manual for Courts-Martial, as then in effect, and the edition currently effective, both state that voluntary intoxication not amounting to legal insanity, whether caused by alcohol or drugs, is not an excuse for an offense committed while in that condition. 

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.  There is no evidence of record that the applicant was so impaired by alcohol problems that he could not both tell right from wrong and adhere to the right, or that the discharge resulted from diminished capacity due to alcohol.  The applicant was discharged for his misconduct and alcoholism is not normally accepted as a defense.  An  indication that intoxication is a legally inadequate defense, both in the military and in society as a whole, is demonstrated by the fact that drunk drivers are normally held legally responsible for the results of their behavior even though they are shown to be alcoholic.

2.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant served without incident for 15 months before he received an Article 15 for being drunk and disorderly, thereby demonstrating his capability for honorable service.  Counseling records reveal the applicant accepted company transfers by his commander as a method of rehabilitation for his unacceptable behavior.

3.  Furthermore, the applicant offered no evidence to substantiate his implied claim that he was so incapacitated by alcohol that he could not tell right from wrong, nor does he offer any evidence to support the conclusion that he would have accepted and successfully completed treatment had it been offered, or, for that matter, that he is in recovery at the time of the application.

4.  Prior to reaching the determination that it was not in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file, the Board looked at the entire file.  It was only after all other aspects had been considered and it had been concluded that there was no basis to recommend a correction of the records that the Board considered the statute of limitations. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it undoubtedly would have recommended relief in spite of the failure to submit the application within the 3 year time limit.  The Board has never denied an application simply because it was not submitted within the required time.

5.  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.

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

____x____  ___x_____  ____x____  DENY APPLICATION




						Loren G. Harrell
						Director