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

3.  He states that he was underage when he enlisted and had never tried liquor.  He was introduced to alcoholic beverages in the Army which developed into alcoholism.  He admits that he committed many offenses while he was on active duty, but none of them were serious and were all committed after he had too much to drink.  He was not offered any counseling or therapy for his alcoholism.

4.  The applicant’s military records could not be located and are presumed destroyed in the fire at the records repository at St. Louis in 1973.  The information contained herein was supplied by documentation submitted by the applicant.

5.  He enlisted on 3 October 1950 for 3 years.

6.  During his enlistment he accepted nonjudicial punishment on seven occasions for offenses consisting mainly of missing bedcheck and being absent from his place of duty.  He was also convicted by seven summary courts-martial of offenses consisting mainly of being absent from his place of duty and of being AWOL for short periods of time.  

7.  On 28 January 1953 the applicant was psychiatrically evaluated due to pending elimination action.  The psychiatrist stated that although the applicant was accused of having participated in a homosexual act, he claimed that he did not remember the incident because he had been drinking at that time.  The psychiatrist stated that the applicant did not appear effeminate, was not familiar with homosexual terminology, and did not have a background conducive to a homosexual.  However, the psychiatrist stated that the applicant did exhibit inadequate responses to intellectual, emotional, social and physical demands; that although he was neither deficient physically or mentally, his poor judgment, lack of drive and failure to meet even the ordinary demands of life made it impossible for him to adapt himself to the Army.

8.  On 23 May 1953 an elimination board was convened to determine whether the applicant should be involuntarily separated due to unfitness.  The elimination board found that the applicant was unfit for further service because of sexual perversion and continual misconduct, and recommended that he given an undesirable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368.

9.  That recommendation was approved and on 18 September 1953 the applicant was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

10.  Army Regulation 615-368, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  Unfitness included misconduct, habits and traits of character manifested by antisocial or amoral trends, chronic alcoholism, criminalism, drug addiction, pathological lying, homosexuality, sexual perversion, habitual shirking, and repeated venereal infections.  Action to separate an individual was to be taken when, in the judgment of the commander, rehabilitation was unsuccessful, impractical or was unlikely to produce a satisfactory soldier.  When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

11.  Army Regulation 615-369, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel for inaptitude and unsuitability.  It provided, in pertinent part, for the discharge due to unsuitability of those individuals with character and behavior disorders, with mental deficiencies, and with apathetic, defective attitudes.  When separation for unsuitability was warranted a general discharge was required to be issued.

12.  Currently, the Army attempts to provide alternatives to substance abuse, to publicize the adverse consequences of substance abuse, to stress prevention and control of substance abuse, and to provide mandatory substance abuse education to enlisted personnel, noncommissioned officers and warrant officers.  The Army’s objective is to identify substance abusers and individuals who show the potential to develop such abusive behavior and to enter them into the appropriate level of the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program, depending on the degree of severity of their substance abuse.  
14.  Under current policy (Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 15), an enlisted soldier may only be separated for homosexuality if they engage in, attempt to engage in, or solicit another to engage in a homosexual act unless such conduct is a departure for the soldier’s usual and customary behavior and such behavior is unlikely to recur because it is shown that the act occurred because of immaturity, intoxication, coercion or intimidation.

CONCLUSIONS:  

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation for unfitness was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations then in effect with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  However, all of the applicant’s offenses were minor and are the type typically associated with abuse of alcohol.

3.  If alcoholism had been recognized as a disease during the time of the applicant’s service, and if the Army had provided detoxification and rehabilitation services, the applicant would have, in all likelihood, been identified as having a problem with alcohol, been referred to rehabilitation services, and would have probably been able to complete his term of service.  Viewed in this light, an undesirable discharge is too harsh in this case.  However, the applicant’s record of misconduct, regardless of whether it was alcohol related, would have precluded giving him an honorable discharge.

4.  It appears from the applicant’s psychiatric evaluation that his participation in a homosexual act was a departure from his usual and customary behavior and occurred because of his immaturity and intoxication.  Under today’s standards, such an incident would not have warranted his separation.

5.  The Board must also take into consideration the fact that the applicant was discharged within 15 days of the expiration of his contracted term of service.

6.  In view of the preceding conclusions, it appears that it would be more appropriate to show that the applicant was discharged for unsuitability, inaptitude, and issued a General Discharge Certificate in lieu of the undesirable discharge he was issued for unfitness.

7.  In view of the foregoing conclusions, 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:

	a.  by showing that the individual concerned was separated from the service due to unsuitability, inaptitude; and

	b.  by showing that his service was under honorable conditions (a general discharge).

2.  That the Department of the Army issue to him a General Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 18 September 1953, in lieu of the undesirable discharge previously issued to 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