MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


                  IN THE CASE OF:
        


                  BOARD DATE: 23 September 2003
                  DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003083895

         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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson
Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member
Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr.		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 essence, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to that of honorable so that he may become eligible to obtain veterans' benefits.

APPLICANT STATES: That, currently, his record shows that the characterization of his service is under other than honorable conditions. He enlisted at 16 years of age. He was young and it was expected that he would lay down his life for his country. He was ill-equipped to deal with his circumstances and he had problems dealing with authority. Therefore, he used drinking as a coping mechanism. He still has a drinking problem and he realizes the hurt that he has caused the people that love him. He has been abusive to family members and friends and especially to his fiancé. His drinking problem is beginning to affect his job performance. He has experienced blackouts and failed to go to work as a result of his drinking. Due to his abusive nature and drinking problem, the court system has ordered him to complete an anger management course and to get treatment for his drinking problem. Finally, he recognizes that he needs help in order to stop drinking. Ordinarily, he would not ask anyone for help, but he learned at Alcoholics Anonymous that he had to admit that he had a problem and ask for help. He is asking that the Board give his situation serious consideration. He would be encouraged to know he has not ruined all chances of obtaining the Board's assistance.

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

On 18 December 1974, the applicant's mother signed a declaration of parental consent for him to enlist in the military. On 15 January 1975, at age 17 years and 5 months, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years and the United States Army Airborne Enlistment Option (Basic Airborne Training). The applicant completed basic training at Fort Dix, New Jersey, and he was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, for advanced individual training (AIT).

On 4 April 1975, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), was imposed against the applicant for failing to obey a lawful order given by his squad leader. His punishment included the forfeiture of $30 pay per month for 1 month and 7 days of extra duty and restriction.

The applicant completed his AIT requirements and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 12B (Combat Engineer). In May 1975, he was assigned to Fort Benning, Georgia, for completion of the Basic Airborne Training Course. He did not complete the training requirements. No further details about the course are available. The applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit from 12-13 June 1975.

On 8 July 1975, the applicant was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, with duties in his MOS.

On 30 September 1975, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being disrespectful towards a commissioned officer and for disobeying a lawful order given by a commissioned office on 25 September 1975. His punishment included the forfeiture of $60 pay per month for 1 month (suspended for 60 days) and 5 days of extra duty. On 17 November 1975, that portion of the applicant's punishment that provided for the suspended forfeiture of pay was vacated.

On 26 November 1975, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of twice being disrespectful towards a commissioned officer on 14 November 1975. His sentence included reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1, confinement at hard labor for 45 days, and 60 days of restriction.

On 9 April 1976, NJP was imposed against the applicant for twice willfully disobeying a lawful order on 30 and on 31 March 1976 and for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed on 7 April 1976. His punishment included the forfeiture of $84 pay (suspended for 30 days) and 7 days of extra duty.

On 23 August 1976, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed on 8 August 1976. His punishment included the forfeiture of $93 pay for 1 month and 14 days of extra duty. On an unknown date he was again promoted to pay grade E-2.

On 26 August 1976, the applicant's commander officially notified him that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct. The applicant was advised of the rights available to him.

On an unknown date, the applicant consulted with legal counsel. He was advised of the nature of the contemplated separation action and its effects. He was also advised of the rights available to him. He waived an administrative separation hearing by a board of officers. The applicant declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 31 August 1976, the applicant's commander recommended separation under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct due to
frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with authorities.

An undated MBA Form 355 (Mental Status Evaluation) shows the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and he was determined to be mentally responsible and able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right. He had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings and he met retention standards.

On 8 September 1976, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to obey a lawful order given by a noncommissioned officer on 26 August 1976. His punishment included the forfeiture of $84 for 1 month, reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1 (suspended for 30 days), and 14 days of extra duty.

On 29 October 1976, the applicant underwent a medical examination which determined that he was physically qualified for separation.

The applicant was AWOL from his unit from 2-16 December 1976. On 3 December 1976, the appropriate authority directed that the applicant be separated due to misconduct with a UD.

On 16 December 1976, the applicant was separated under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct due to frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with authorities with a UD. He had completed 1 year, 10 months and 15 days of active military service.

On 29 November 1983, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13, then in effect (currently chapter 14), established the policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, frequent involvement of a discreditable nature with authorities, commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of alcohol, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absences without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that a UD is 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. 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.

---

2. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would have jeopardized his rights. The type of discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.

3. The applicant was medically evaluated as part of the separation process and there was no evidence that he was suffering from any type of addiction.

4. The Board has taken into consideration the applicant’s contention that he was young and immature; however, he met entrance qualification standards, to include age with a waiver. Further, the Board found no evidence that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service obligation.

5. Entitlement to veterans' benefits is not a matter under the purview of this Board, but rests with the Department of Veteran Affairs. The absence of entitlements does not provide a basis upon which to grant an upgrade of a discharge.

6. The Board applauds the applicant in his recent efforts to seek treatment for problems for which he has determined that he needs help.

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

__jlp___ __aao___ __phm___ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003083895
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20030923
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19761216
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 C13
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	110.0000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.