MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


	IN THE CASE OF:           
	 


	BOARD DATE:            21 January 1999 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC97-06345
				   AR1998011424

	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.


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 under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) be upgraded to honorable.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That he only lost 25 days in his entire career and he was punished for the other incidents (Article 15’s).   

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

At age 18, he enlisted on 16 July 1956 for a period of 3 years.  He trained as a topographic surveyor, served in Japan for 28 months and was honorably discharged in the grade of E-4 on 20 June 1959.  After a break in service, he reenlisted on 22 January 1964 for a period of 3 years.

Between 5 August 1964 and 8 June 1965, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on five separate occasions for drunk and disorderly conduct.  

On 13 June 1965 NJP was again imposed against the applicant for disorderly conduct and disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment consisted of correctional custody for 30 days.

On 27 July 1965 he was convicted by a summary court-martial of breaking restriction.  His punishment consisted of 1 month of confinement at hard labor.

On 28 June 1965 the applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation to discharge the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s numerous incidents involving drunkenness and disorderly conduct both in the United States and three foreign countries.

He underwent a psychiatric evaluation and a medical examination on 28 June 1965 and was cleared for administrative separation by both examinations.

The applicant declined the opportunity of requesting counsel and waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers.  He also elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.  

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for elimination on
17 August 1965 and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.




Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on
2 September 1965 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.  He had served 4 years, 4 months and 21 days of total active service and had 25 days lost time due to confinement.

On 25 August 1976 he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge to honorable.  The board proceedings and results are not contained in the applicant’s personnel records.  However, it was determined that the ADRB denied his request due to his subsequent application to the SDRP on 20 April 1977.

On 24 May 1977, the applicant’s discharge was upgraded to general under the SDRP.  This decision was based on the fact that the applicant met the primary criteria (honorable discharge from a previous tour of military service) and the secondary criteria (record of good citizenship since discharge and he was discharged for alcohol abuse) of the program.  On 27 October 1978, as required by Public Law 95-126, the ADRB reviewed the applicant’s case and voted not to change the SDRP discharge.

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  Section II of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel for frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

The Special Discharge Review Program, often referred to as the “Carter Program,” was announced on 29 March 1977.  The program mandated upgrade of administrative discharges if the applicant met one of seven specified criteria.

Public law 95-126.  This law, enacted on 8 October 1977, provided generally, that no VA benefits could be granted based on any discharge upgraded under the Ford memorandum of 19 January 1977, or the DOD Special Discharge Review Program.  It required the establishment of uniform published standards which did not provide for automatically granting or denying a discharge upgrade for any case or class of cases.  The services were then required to individually compare each discharge previously upgraded under one of the special discharge review programs to the uniform standards and to affirm only those cases where the case met those standards.

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.

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.  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 directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

2.  The applicant’s discharge was upgraded to general under the SDRP on
24 May 1977.  

3.  The applicant’s contentions were noted by the Board.  However, the Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included 6 NJP’s and 
1 summary court-martial 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.  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

___kn___  ___jpi___  __fe ____  DENY APPLICATION




						Loren G. Harrell
						Director



INDEX

CASE ID
AC97-06345
SUFFIX

RECON
 
DATE BOARDED
1999/01/21
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
GD
DATE OF DISCHARGE
1965/09/25
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR635-208
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
NC
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.  A00.20

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.