IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  18 October 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120006463 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier petition to the Board for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) to an honorable discharge (HD).  

2.  The applicant states he is thankful for the opportunity for reconsideration and requests two new pieces of evidence to be considered.  He claims he received treatment for alcoholism 2 months after he was discharged and continues to maintain sobriety.  

3.  The applicant provides a board of officer's report of proceedings and page 1676 of the Veterans’ Benefits Manual as new evidence.  

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 AR20110012807, on 10 January 2012.

2.  During the original review of the Board there was no evidence indicating the applicant was diagnosed with alcohol abuse or dependency prior to discharge.  Based on the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board presumed the applicant’s discharge was administratively correct and that his UD was commensurate with his overall record of service.  He provided new evidence that will be considered by the Board.

3.  The applicant provides a board of officer's report of proceedings that includes testimony from his first sergeant who indicated the applicant did drink and then failed to return to duty.  It also includes a mental status evaluation completed on
19 December 1955.  It indicates the applicant suffered from no disqualifying psychiatric disease and there was no medical contraindication to any warranted administrative action.  The packet also contains a record of previous conditions that shows the applicant had three summary court-martial (SCM) convictions between 25 October 1954 and 15 February 1955 and a special court-martial (SPCM) conviction on 10 September 1954.  All of these convictions were for violation of Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without leave (AWOL) and failure to repair.  

4.  The applicant also provides page 1676 of the Veterans’ Benefits Manual that provides possible evidence that would support an upgrade of a discharge.  In this case the applicant notes the lack of treatment next to the entry “evidence of the unfair nature of the discharge and how it has impacted the veteran’s life (loss of job opportunities), inability to pursue dreams etc., and noted the Army’s culture at the time which encouraged and promoted the use of alcohol next to the entry employment history."  He also placed asterisks next to the entries “alcoholism” and “alcohol related misconduct.”  

5.  The record shows after completing three prior years of military service, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 September 1953.  He held and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 111.10 (Light Weapons Infantryman).  During the period of enlistment under review, the applicant earned the National Defense Service Medal and Parachutist Badge.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  

6.  The record further shows the applicant accrued 153 days of lost time due to being AWOL and in confinement.  He completed 1 year, 10 months, and 
26 days of active service during this period.  He was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 with a UD on 17 January 1956 in the rank of private/E-1.  

7.  Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who were found unfit or unsuitable for further military service.  The regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities for unfitness.  While the separation authority could grant a general 


discharge (GD) or HD, if warranted by the member's overall record of service, the issue of a UD was normally considered appropriate for members separated under these provisions. 

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 3-7a provides that an HD 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, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge (GD) 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.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for reconsideration and the new evidence he submits has been carefully considered.  The board of officer's report of proceedings regarding the applicant’s drinking fails to provide any new compelling evidence that the applicant was diagnosed with or suffered from alcohol dependency at the time of discharge.  Further, the mental status evaluation included in the packet submitted by the applicant confirms he suffered from no disabling medical condition that would have supported his processing through medical channels at the time.  

2.  Additionally, the packet the applicant submitted also contains a record of previous convictions that show he had three separate SCM convictions and a SPCM conviction during this period of service.  His record is void of any acts of valor or significant achievement that would mitigate his extensive record of misconduct; therefore, the UD he received was clearly warranted based on his overall record of undistinguished service during the period.  

3.  Absent any new and compelling evidence supporting the applicant’s assertions, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support amendment of the original decision in this case, or to grant the requested relief.  





BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___X____  ____X __  ____X___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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 AR20110012807, dated 10 January 2012.



      _______ _   X______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120006463



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120006463



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1