RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        3 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060003453


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Wanda L. Waller               |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Kenneth Wright                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas Ray                    |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Sherry Stone                  |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration of earlier requests that his
undesirable discharge be upgraded to general.  He also requests, in effect,
that his narrative reason for separation be changed from unfitness to
unsuitability, which is a new issue.

2.  The applicant states he served three years and received an honorable
discharge.  He contends that during his second enlistment he had a problem
with alcohol and at that time the Army had no program to treat this
illness/disease.  He contends that from the early age of 12, alcohol was a
large part of his life.  He states that alcohol impaired his ability to
serve during his second enlistment, that his drinking problem ruined his
marriage, and that he could not hold down a job.  In 1985, he states that
he was granted Social Security disability due to alcoholism and when the
judge told him he was alcoholic it got his attention.  He claims he decided
to take the judge’s advice to seek help for his drinking problem and he
turned his life around.  He points out that he attends church, that he has
received Safe Driving awards, and that he performs community service.  He
further states that the Army did not have an alcohol rehabilitation program
in 1954 and it is his understanding that a Soldier today who abuses alcohol
would receive rehabilitation treatment but would not be issued a discharge
under other than honorable conditions if he failed the rehabilitation
program.

3.  The applicant provides a DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the
Armed Forces of the United States) for the period ending 13 April 1951; a
DD Form 214 for the period ending 19 January 1954; a training certificate;
three Safe Driving award certificates; a certificate of appreciation; and
two letters, dated
28 February 2006 and 5 September 2006, from a Member of Congress.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR2000040275, on 26 October 2000.

2.  The applicant provided certificates of training, safe driving, and
appreciation which attest to his post service accomplishments.

3.  The applicant’s submissions are new evidence which will be considered
by the Board.

4.  The applicant enlisted on 14 April 1948 for a period of 3 years.  He
served as a supply records specialist and was honorably discharged on 13
April 1951.  He reenlisted on 14 April 1951 for a period of 6 years.

5.  On 16 August 1953, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-
martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 1 August 1952 to 10
August 1952.  He was sentenced to be restricted to the limits of the
company area for 1 month and to forfeit $40.  On 18 August 1952, the
convening authority approved the sentence.

6.  On 3 March 1953, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial
of failing to obey a lawful order.  He was sentenced to be restricted to
the Battery area for 1 month and to forfeit $50.  On 6 March 1953, the
convening authority approved the sentence.

7.  On 13 July 1953, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being AWOL from 2 July 1953 to 7 July 1953.  His punishment
consisted of confinement at hard labor for 14 days.

8.  On 29 August 1953, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-
martial of unlawfully entering the kitchen of Companies A and B.  He was
sentenced to perform hard labor for 15 days and to forfeit $65.  On 29
August 1953, the convening authority approved the sentence.

9.  On 17 September 1953, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation
because of heavy drinking, chronic shirking of details, and poor
conformation to regulations.  The report stated the applicant drank
excessively and was not personally interested in changing his behavior or
adapting to Army life.  He was diagnosed with inadequate personality.  The
psychiatrist determined that psychiatric treatment and/or rehabilitation
would be of no benefit to the applicant and that it was strongly
recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service under the
provisions of Army Regulation 615-368.

10.  On 26 September 1953, the applicant’s unit commander recommended that
a board of officers be convened to determine if the applicant should be
retained on active duty.  He cited that the applicant was unfit for
continued service, that he was continuously AWOL, disorderly, and shirked
his duties whenever possible.

11.  The applicant appeared before a board of officers on 24 November 1953.
 The board recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service
because of unfitness and that he be furnished an undesirable discharge.  On

16 December 1953, the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction
approved the recommendation.
12.  The applicant was discharged on 19 January 1954 with an undesirable
discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-368 for unfitness.
He had served a total of 5 years, 8 months, and 19 days of creditable
active service with 17 days of lost time due to AWOL.

13.  On 15 April 1954, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the
applicant’s request for an honorable discharge.

14.  Army Regulation 615-368, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness.  The
regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel for
the following reasons:  (1) gives evidence of habits or traits of character
manifested by antisocial or amoral trend, chronic alcoholism, criminalism,
drug addiction, pathological lying, homosexuality, sexual perversion, or
misconduct; (2) unclean habits;
(3) repeatedly committed petty offenses not warranting trial by court-
martial;
(4) habitual shirker; or (5) recommended for discharge by a board of
medical examiners, not because of a physical or mental disability, but
because he possessed a psychopathic (antisocial) personality disorder or
defect, or was classified as having “no disease” by the board, and his
record of service revealed frequent disciplinary actions because of
infractions of regulations and commission of offenses, and/or it is clearly
evident his complaints were unfounded and were made with the intent of
avoiding service.  The regulation also provided that when discharged
because of unfitness an undesirable discharge will be furnished.

15.  Army Regulation 615-368, also stated, in pertinent part, that a board
of officers would recommend that the individual be either discharged
because of unfitness, unsuitability, or retained in the service.  The
regulation stated that discharge, if recommended, would be for unfitness,
except that discharge because of unsuitability (under Army Regulation 615-
369, without referral to another board) might be recommended in borderline
cases if military circumstances and the character of service rendered by
the individual during his current period of service so warrant.  As
examples, such circumstances would apply where the cause of unfitness had
been minor, relative to the length of efficient service or where there had
been a definite effort at self control, or where an individual had, during
his current period of service, distinguished himself by an act of heroism,
which in itself reflected great credit on the individual and the military
service.

16.  Army Regulation 615-369, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for inaptitude or
unsuitability.  The regulation also provided that discharge for
unsuitability would be effected when it was determined that an individual
had demonstrated maladaptability for further military service for the
following reasons:  (1) character and behavior disorder;
(2) mental deficiency; and (3) enuresis.  The regulation also provided that
when discharged because of inaptitude or unsuitability a general discharge
would be furnished.

17.  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 AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record supports the applicant’s contention that alcohol
impaired his ability to serve during his second enlistment.  The
psychiatric evaluation conducted on 17 September 1953 indicates the
applicant was a heavy drinker and that he drank excessively.  It is also
noted that the applicant now states he began drinking at the age of 12 and
that alcohol was a large part of his life; however, his record of service
shows that he served honorably and without any alcohol related incidents
during the period 14 April 1948 to 13 April 1951.

2.  Unfortunately, the applicant is correct in stating that, at the time in
question, the Army did not have the formal alcohol rehabilitation programs
now available to Soldiers.  However, there is no evidence to show that the
applicant’s numerous acts of misconduct were directly related to his
alcohol problem.  To presume that he would not have committed that
misconduct had he been admitted to an alcohol rehabilitation program is
purely speculative.  In addition, he was treated no differently from other
Soldiers serving during the time in question with similar problems.

3.  Good post service conduct and achievements by themselves are not a
basis for upgrading a discharge.

4.  The applicant’s record of service included one nonjudicial punishment,
three summary court-martial convictions, and 17 days of lost time.  As a
result, his record of service was not satisfactory.  Regrettably, the
applicant’s record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant a
general discharge.

5.  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.
6.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

7.  The applicant’s request that his narrative reason for separation be
changed from unfitness to unsuitability was noted.  However, in accordance
with the governing regulation, a board of officers recommended that he be
discharged for unfitness.  It appears the board of officers determined that
the military circumstances and his character of service during his second
enlistment did not warrant discharge because of unsuitability.  Therefore,
there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request to change his
narrative reason for separation to unsuitability.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

KW_____  ___TR___  _SS____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of
the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR2000040275, dated 26 October 2000.

2.  With regard to the applicant's remaining issue to change his narrative
reason from unfitness to unsuitability, the Board determined that the
evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error
or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of
this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the
individual concerned.



                                  ___Kenneth Wright_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060003453                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |20001026                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061003                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19540119                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 615-368                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unfitness                               |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |110.0200                                |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]