MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 11 October 2001
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001058419

         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.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson
Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member
Mr. Jose A. Martinez		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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his undesirable discharge was inequitable because he did not have a drinking problem when he entered the service and he was not offered a chance to rehabilitate himself when he obviously had a chronic and severe alcohol consumption problem that was exacerbated by his transfer to Germany. He also states that he had a problem adjusting to the service due to having to leave his 15 year old pregnant bride at home while he went overseas. In support of his application he submits six third party character references.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records were partially destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri which destroyed millions of service records. However, the surviving records show:

He was inducted in Beckley, West Virginia on 22 July 1952. At the time of his induction he indicated that his next of kin was his mother who resided in Jolo, West Virginia. He completed his engineer advanced individual training at Fort Belvoir, Virginia and was transferred to Germany on 1 April 1953 for duty as a pioneer. He was initially assigned to D Company, 103^rd Engineer Battalion and on 7 September 1953 was rehabilitatively transferred to Company B, 15^th Engineer Battalion.

The available records show that during the period of 10 July 1953 to June 1954 he was convicted by four special courts-martial of offenses ranging from disrespect to a noncommissioned officer, resisting arrest, drunk on duty, disorderly conduct and being absent without leave (AWOL) from 1 May to 9 May and 29 May to 3 June 1954.

He also had nonjudicial punishment imposed against him on three occasions during the period of 22 September 1953 and 30 April 1954 for offenses ranging from failure to repair, AWOL and conduct unbecoming a soldier.

On 19 July 1954 the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368. The applicant acknowledged his rights and was advised to appear before a board of officers.

The applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation on 21 July 1954 and was found to be without mental defect. The psychiatrist recommended separation for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368.

The applicant appeared before a board of officers with counsel on 11 August 1954. The witnesses testified that the applicant had the ability to be a good soldier when he was not drinking, that he was rehabilitatively transferred and repeatedly counseled with a view toward rehabilitation, but with negative results. Furthermore, he was uncooperative and was resentful of authority and would go off-post without a pass when he had been denied a pass. They also indicated that they repeatedly inquired of the applicant if he had any personal problems that were causing him to act as he did and always responded that he had no personal or domestic problems.

The board found that the applicant displayed traits of habits which rendered him unfit for further military service and recommended that he be discharged with an undesirable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368. The appropriate authority approved the findings and recommendation of the Board on 23 August 1954.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 23 September 1954 under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 for unfitness. He had served 1 year, 7 months and 20 days of total active service and had 192 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

On 12 March 1982, while residing in Ashtabula, Ohio, the applicant applied to this Board for an upgrade of his discharge. He contended at that time that he had a drinking problem when he entered the service, which continued and was the result of his problems while in the service. He also stated that it was not until recently that he became aware of how severe his problem was and that his family had suffered enough because of his drinking problem and his discharge. The Board opined that all attempts to rehabilitate the applicant had failed and that he had been properly discharged. The Board denied his request on 3 November 1982.

The supporting statements submitted by the applicant indicate that he is a hard working and honest man who has taken care of his family over the years despite much hardship. They also indicate that he has stopped drinking for many years (statements differ from 10 to 18 years).

The available records also contain a request from the Adult Probation Department in Ashtabula, Ohio dated 30 March 1989 in which the applicant granted permission to release his military records to be used in a pre-sentence investigation.

Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel by reason of unfitness. That regulation provided for the discharge of individuals who had demonstrated their unfitness by giving evidence of habits and traits of character manifested by misconduct. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

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.

2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate even given the limited information contained in the available records.

3. The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board and appear to be without merit. Although the applicant did have some alcohol related incidents during his relatively short period of service, the available evidence shows that the applicant’s misconduct was not limited to alcohol related incidents and indicates that he simply chose not to conform to basic military discipline or a regimented way of life when afforded an opportunity to rehabilitate himself. Accordingly, his contentions are not sufficiently mitigating when compared to his undistinguished record of service during such a short amount of time.

4. The Board also notes that when he previously applied to the Board he contended that he had a drinking problem when he entered the service and he now contends that being in the service perpetuated the problem. The Board finds no evidence to support that contention. Additionally, while the available records are silent as to when the applicant got married, it is reasonable to presume that if he was as concerned with the welfare of his spouse as he would have the Board to believe, he would not have been spending his money as freely for alcohol or become involved in activities and misconduct that resulted in forfeitures of pay and for which he was discharged.

5. While the Board applauds his efforts at rehabilitation and good post-service conduct, they do not change the fact that his service was under other than honorable conditions at the time and given the circumstances of this case, they are not sufficient to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

6. 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 this requirement.

7. 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

___mdm_ ___jhk __ ___jm ___ DENY APPLICATION

                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001058419
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	2001/10/11
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1954/09/23
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR615-368
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 583	144.5000/a51.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.