MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: 29 April 1998
         DOCKET NUMBER: AC97-11410

         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. The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr.	Fred K. McCoy		Chairperson
Mr.	Fred N. Eichorn		Member
Mr.	Robert W. Garrett		Member

         Also present, without vote, were:

Mr.	Loren G. Harrell		Director
Mr.	Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst

         The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         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: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general/under honorable conditions discharge (GD).

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was young, immature, and suffering from alcoholism at the time of his discharge, but didn’t know it at the time. In support of his request the applicant has submitted a comprehensive statement attesting to his good past service conduct, and two documents attesting to his good service.

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

On 8 June 1964 the applicant entered the Regular Army for 3 years at the age of 17. He successfully completed basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Upon completion of training he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13E (Fire Direction Control Specialist) and was assigned to overseas duty in Germany for his first duty station.

The applicant’s record documents no individual acts of valor, achievement or service warranting special recognition, and indicates the highest grade held by the applicant while on active duty was specialist/E-4. However, the record does contain an extensive record of disciplinary infractions including: two trials by summary courts -martial; and acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on four different occasions.

On 10 September 1964 the applicant accepted an NJP for being absent from his place of duty on 6 September 1964 and received as punishment a forfeiture of $10.00 and 14 days of extra duty and restriction. On 7 February 1966 the applicant accepted his second NJP for being AWOL from 4 to 5 February 1966 and wrongfully using, with the intent to deceive, a military pass. He was punished with a reduction to private first class/E-3; forfeiture of $27.00; and restriction and extra duty for 7 days. On 17 February 1966 the applicant accepted a third NJP for being absent from his appointed place of duty. His punishment for this offense included reduction to private/E-2; forfeiture of $15.00 (suspended); and restriction for 14 days. Finally, on 16 April 1966 the applicant accepted his last NJP for having in his possession a switch blade knife and was punished with an oral reprimand and 14 days of restriction and extra duty.

On 13 May 1966 the applicant was tried by summary court-martial for violation of Article 86 for being AWOL from 8 to 11 May 1966. The resultant sentence was 1 month of confinement at hard labor and forfeiture of $60.00. On 15 July 1966 the applicant was again tried by summary court-martial for two specifications of violation of Article 95: the first specification was for breaking arrest at 1850 hours on 10 July 1966 after being placed under arrest in his quarters; and the second specification was also for breaking arrest on the same date at 2300 hours. The applicant plead and was found guilty. The resultant sentence was confinement at hard labor for 1 month; forfeiture of $83.00; and an oral reprimand.

On 17 May 1966 the applicant’s unit commander notified him of his intent to recommend elimination action on him, under the provisions of AR 635-208 for unfitness. On 20 May 1966 the applicant, after being advised of his rights and the basis for the contemplated elimination action, elected to waive his right to have his case heard by a board of officers and to receive counsel.

On 9 July 1966 the appropriate authority approved the elimination action and directed the applicant be discharged with a UD. Accordingly, on 20 August 1966
the applicant was discharged after completing 2 years, 0 months, 22 days of active military service, and accruing 32 days of time lost due to AWOL and confinement.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, provided in pertinent part the policies, procedures, and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unfit for further military service. Individuals discharged under this regulation would normally be issued a UD.

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 Board acknowledges the applicant’s post service good conduct and his obvious desire to makes amends for his past indiscretions. However, the Board found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service; in addition, there is no evidence that the applicant sought help from, or was denied treatment by the chain of command for an alcohol related problem. The evidence of record established that the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome noted deficiencies. As the applicant did not subsequently conform to required standards of discipline and performance, the command appropriately determined the applicant did not demonstrate the potential for further military service.

2. The Board examined the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review. There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offenses. The Board concluded that the discrediting entries in the applicant's record were not mitigated by prior or subsequent service of sufficient merit to warrant an upgrade of the discharge being reviewed.

3. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation applicable at the time. The reason for and the character of the discharge are commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

4. 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 the aforementioned requirement.

5. 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

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION




                                                      Loren G. Harrell
                                                      Director