MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 24 October 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002076587

         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
Mrs. Victoria A. Donaldson		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor		Chairperson
Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member
Ms. Karen A. Heinz		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 general under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he has spent the last twenty years in recovery and has been sober and working with homeless veterans for the last ten years. He states that he joined the Army to make a career for himself because he had problems in school in the early sixties. He continues that he was introduced to alcohol in the Army and that drinking and violence were a daily part of being in an airborne unit in Germany. He contends that he "gave what he could," got caught up in the alcohol culture of the airborne, received little to no help with his problem and then was "thrown away" by the people that recruited him into that lifestyle. In conclusion, he states that he sobered up, began to put his life back together and has been successful at working with the homeless in Vermont. In support of his application, the applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).

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

The applicant enlisted on 30 March 1962 for a period of 3 years. He successfully completed basic combat training, advanced individual training and basic airborne training. On 16 September 1962, he was transferred to Germany for duty as a cannoneer.

On 7 June 1963, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for assault on a member of his unit. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $50.00 per month for two months and extra duty for 30 days.

On 8 November 1963, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for "coming over the front wall." His punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of PVT, E-2, restriction for fourteen days and extra duty for 2 hours per day.

On 20 November 1963, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for breaking a duly imposed restriction. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $45.00 for one month and to be placed in correctional custody for
20 days.

On 23 June 1964, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for sitting down while on guard duty. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of PVT, E-2, forfeiture of seven days base pay ($33.00) for one month and extra duty for 14 days.

On 20 November 1964, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of
being AWOL (4 specifications; 6 November 1964 to 7 November 1964,
7 November 1964 to 7 November 1964, 8 November 1964 to 8 November 1964, and 9 November 1964 to 10 November 1964). He was sentenced to reduction to the lowest enlisted grade; Private E-1; to be confined at hard labor for 3 months and to forfeit $70.00 pay per month for 3 months. The convening authority disapproved the findings of guilty for specification 4 (AWOL, 9 November 1964 to
10 November 1964). On 20 November 1964, the convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as provides for confinement at hard labor for one month, hard labor without confinement for 45 days, reduction to the lowest enlisted grade private, E-1, and forfeiture of $70.00 pay per month for two months but suspended confinement at hard labor for one month for two months. On 20 January 1965, the suspended portion of the sentence to confinement was vacated.

On 13 January 1965, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness. The applicant waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers, waived representation by counsel and elected not to submit written documentation on his behalf.

The applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation and medical examination and was cleared for administrative separation.

On 13 January 1965, the commander recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness with an undesirable discharge.

On 16 January 1965, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of assault and of being AWOL from 2 January 1965 to 2 January 1965. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for one month; forfeiture of $75.00 pay per month for one month and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade, Private E-1. On 16 January 1965, the convening authority approved the sentence.

On 4 February 1964, the convening authority remitted the unexecuted portion of the sentence to confinement at hard labor for one month effective 10 February 1965.

On 11 February 1965, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness with an undesirable discharge, directed that he be reduced to the lowest grade enlisted grade under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-205 and that the applicant be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

On 1 March 1965, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-208, for unfitness (frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities). He had served 2 years, 9 months and 25 days of active service with 38 days lost due to AWOL and confinement.

There is no evidence in the applicant's service personnel records which shows that he was diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or as alcohol dependent.

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, 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 incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

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.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

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 noted the applicant's claim that he was introduced to alcohol in the Army and that drinking and violence were a daily part of being in an airborne unit in Germany. There is no evidence in the applicant's service record and the applicant has provided no evidence to support these claims.

2. There is no evidence of alcohol and/or drug problems in the applicant’s medical records.

3. The Board reviewed the applicant's record of service 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. The Board reviewed the applicant's record of service which included four nonjudicial punishments, one special court-martial conviction, one summary court-martial conviction and 38 days lost. As a result the Board determined that his record of service was not satisfactory. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to a general discharge.

5. The Board considered the applicant's contentions regarding his post service achievements and conduct. However, good post service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a discharge.

6. 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 and reason for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

7. 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 unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

8. 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

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.