MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 19 September 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002066543

         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
Ms. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson
Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Member
Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		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 or that his records be corrected to show he was discharged for medical reasons.

APPLICANT STATES: That all of the problems that caused his discharge were a direct result of his alcoholism and alcoholism is now recognized as a treatable disease by the American Medical Association. He states that at the time that he was in the Army, information regarding alcoholism was not known to the military and no real medical treatment for the disease was made available to him. He states that today’s Army works very hard to help young soldiers with the disease of alcoholism and to return them to duty. He goes on to state that the only rehabilitation he was ever offered was disciplinary in nature and had nothing to do with dealing with alcoholism. He states that he does not deny any of the charges, as they were substantially correct; however, had it not been for his alcohol problem, the courts-martial would have never happened. He continues by stating that he is now in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and his life has changed dramatically; that he has had to live with the consequences of his alcoholic actions for 46 years; that this is a very long time to feel the guilt and shame that he brought on the Army, his family and himself; and that he had tried to make amends for his past actions by helping other suffering alcoholics. In support of his appeal he submits 16 letters dated between 15 January and 14 February 2002 from friends, associates and supporters attesting to his good post-service conduct and character; copies of documents that are currently maintained in his Official Military Personnel File; a copy of his arrest record; and copies of his Army medical records.

COUNSEL CONTENDS: That the applicant was a severe alcoholic and his condition contributed to his misconduct. Counsel states that under current standards alcoholism is considered as an illness and treatment would be provided. He further states that had the applicant been afforded treatment or entry in a rehabilitation program it would seem reasonable that he could have overcome his problem with alcohol. Counsel goes on to state that the applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder and his condition would have diminished his ability to serve and had he been discharged as a result of his personality disorder, an honorable discharge would have been warranted.

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

On 28 April 1955, he enlisted in the Army in Knoxville, Tennessee for 3 years in the pay grade of E-1. He successfully completed his training as a heavy weapons infantryman. On 13 May 1955, he was transferred to Fort Riley, Kansas.




While in Kansas, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial on 11 August 1955, of being absent from his unit from 2 August until 7 August 1955. He was sentenced to perform hard labor without confinement for 15 days, a forfeiture of pay in the amount of $50.00 and restriction for 15 days.

On 4 November 1955, he was transferred to Germany.

On 5 January 1956, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of willfully disobeying a lawful command. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor at the United States Army Europe Rehabilitation Center for 3 months and a forfeiture of pay in the amount of $50.00 per month for 3 months.

He was convicted by a summary court-martial on 29 February 1956, of unlawfully entering the sleeping quarters of the unit mail clerk. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor at the United States Army Europe Rehabilitation Center for 1 month and a forfeiture of pay in the amount of $60.00 for 1 month. However, on 8 March 1956, the portion of the sentence in excess of confinement at hard labor for 1 month and a forfeiture of pay in the amount of $55.00 for 1 month was set aside.

On 29 February 1956, the applicant underwent a medical evaluation to determine his physical and mental status prior to being recommended to appear before a board of officers. The attending physician indicated that he showed no evidence of neurosis or psychosis. The physician further indicated that he had a mild character disorder with a tendency toward alcoholism and no complaints regarding health; and that he was capable of distinguishing right from wrong and should be able to adhere to the right. The physician determined that the applicant had a mild character disturbance, which was chronic and that there were no physical or mental defects sufficient to warrant a discharge through medical channels.

On 16 March 1956, a board of officers convened to determine the applicant’s fitness for retention on active duty. During the board proceedings, sworn statements from eight individuals with his unit were presented for review. In each of the statements, reference is made to the applicant’s excessive use of alcohol. His fellow soldiers had no desire to continue to serve with him. The board recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provision of Army Regulation 615-368 for unfitness and that he be furnished an undesirable discharge.





The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge. Accordingly, on 17 April 1956, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 for unfitness based on habits and traits of character rendering retention in the service undesirable. He had completed 10 months and 23 days of total active service and he was furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

There is no evidence of record to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

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 undesirable 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 therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3. The Board has noted the contentions of the applicant and his counsel. However, prior to his discharge the applicant was confined twice to the United States Army Europe Rehabilitation Center and during the time of his enlistment, was the treatment that was available for alcohol abuse. Although his misconduct may have been as a direct result of his alcohol use, he was properly punished for his acts of misconduct in accordance with the appropriate regulations in effect at that time. He had less than 11 months of total active service and he was convicted twice by a summary court-martial and once by a special court-martial. Further, alcohol abuse does not excuse misconduct.

4. Counsel’s contention that the applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder is unsupported by the evidence of record. The record clearly shows that he was diagnosed as having a mild character disorder with a tendency toward alcoholism and no complaints regarding health. He was capable of distinguishing right from wrong and should have been able to adhere to the right.



5. While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant's good post-service conduct it is not a sufficient basis to warrant the relief requested.

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

___md___ ___jhl___ ___reb __ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002066543
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	2002/09/19
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1956/04/17
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 615-368
DISCHARGE REASON	583
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 562	144.4500
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.