MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 17 December 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002079078

         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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson
Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member
Mr. William D. Powers		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: In effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was an active alcoholic at the time he served, and he was unable to recognize his wrongdoings. He claims that he was incapable of being a productive member of the Army due to his untreated illness. He states that his record will show that he had several drunk and disorderly occurrences; however, at no time was he offered referral to a treatment facility or rehabilitation program. He contends that since his discharge, he has recognized that he suffers from the disease of alcoholism, and he has been clean and sober for over eight years. He now requests that his discharge be upgraded in order to allow him to better provide for his family.

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

On 12 July 1983, he enlisted in the Regular Army for four years. He completed basic training at Fort Dix, New Jersey and was reassigned to Fort Gordon, Georgia, to attend advanced individual training (AIT) in military occupational specialty (MOS) 05C (Radio Teletype Operator).

The applicant’s record confirms that he never completed AIT and was not awarded a MOS. Further, the record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition. However, it does contain an extensive disciplinary history during the short period the applicant served on active duty.

The applicant’s disciplinary history includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on two separate occasions; a record of formal counseling on twelve separate occasions for a myriad of disciplinary and duty performance related issues between 12 October 1983 and 16 January 1984; and a student training report confirming that he was counseled on his poor academic performance on 3 November 1983.

On 17 January 1984, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation at the Community Mental Health Service (CMHS). This evaluation confirmed that he suffered from no mental disease, disorder, or defect that warranted disposition through medical channels. It further indicated that the applicant could distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right, and that he was responsible for his actions. The evaluation further found that that continued efforts at rehabilitation, transfer, or disciplinary action would not be of any value in the applicant’s case, and it recommended that administrative separation action be considered by the command.

---

On 24 January 1984, the applicant’s unit commander notified the applicant that separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance. In a statement supporting the action, the unit commander cited failed rehabilitation efforts, the applicant’s extensive disciplinary record, and the recommendation of mental health professionals, which indicated that further rehabilitation efforts in the applicant’s case would be fruitless.

On 25 January 1984, the applicant consulted legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects, and of the rights available to him. The applicant submitted a statement in which he indicated that he realized that he had an unstable past, and that in the last three weeks had attempted to correct his behavior. He asked to be given one more chance to prove himself.

On 1 February 1984, the unit commander submitted a recommendation that the applicant be separated under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation
635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance. The unit commander stated that discharge was necessary based on the failure of all attempts at counseling and rehabilitation of the applicant, and he outlined the applicant’s record of NJP and counseling in support of his recommendation.

On 7 February 1984, the separation authority waived further counseling and rehabilitation efforts, approved the separation action, and directed that the applicant receive a GD. On 13 February 1984, the applicant was discharged accordingly, after completing just 7 months and 2 days of active military service.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

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 notes the applicant’s contention that he was an active alcoholic at the time he served and that he was never offered treatment for this disease that was causing his unsatisfactory performance of duty. However, the Board finds insufficient evidence to support his claim.

---

2. Although not specifically related to alcohol use or abuse, the evidence of record confirms that the applicant was extensively counseled on his disciplinary problems and duty performance shortcomings. In addition, it is clear that the command made comprehensive efforts at rehabilitating the applicant prior to initiating separation action. The Board is convinced that had it been determined that the applicant suffered from alcoholism, or if he had sought treatment for this condition, it would have been provided at the time.

3. Further, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation that verified that he was free of any mental disease, disorder, or defect that would have warranted disposition through medical channels. Therefore, the Board finds no evidentiary basis to conclude that applicant’s dependence on alcohol was serious enough to be a mitigating factor for his unsatisfactory performance of duty.

4. The record also confirms that the applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations. The Board is satisfied that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process and that his discharge accurately reflects his short undistinguished overall record of service. Therefore, the Board finds an upgrade of his discharge is not warranted at this time.

5. 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.

6. 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

__LLS__ __BJE___ __WDP__ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002079078
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	2002/12/17
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1984/02/13
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C13
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsat Perf
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 189
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.