PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:            03 December 1998                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC97-09790

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. David H. Keller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edward Williamson		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to general.  He also requests that his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected to show his awards and overseas service.

3.  The applicant states that before he was discharged, he was told by his first sergeant that he would receive a general discharge under honorable conditions.  He also states that after reviewing his discharge, he finds that all of his medals are not listed and his time spent overseas is incorrect.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted on 11 October 1961 and was trained as a telecommunications switchboard operator.  He reenlisted twice, in 1963 for 6 years and in 1968 for 6 more years.  The highest rank to which he was promoted was specialist 4 (E-4).  His assignment history includes overseas tours in France, Germany, Belgium and two tours in Vietnam.

5.  The applicant served his first tour in Vietnam with the 69th Signal Battalion, from 9 January 1966 to 28 December 1966.  He served his second tour in Vietnam with the 124th Signal Battalion, from 1 April to 27 June 1969.

6.  On 10 July 1968 the applicant was tried and found guilty by special court-martial for assaulting a foreign national, entering an off-limits establishment, and possessing a concealed weapon.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 1 month, forfeiture of $45.00 per month for 3 months, and reduction in grade to private (E-1).

7.  On 27 August 1971 the applicant was administered NJP for 1 day AWOL.

8.  The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not on file.  His DD Form 214 indicates that he was discharged for unfitness on 
9 November 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, and was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He had 9 years, 11 months and 27 days of creditable service and 33 days of time lost.  An Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) brief, dated 16 April 1973, shows that his discharge was based on an established pattern of failure to pay just debts.

9.  His DD Form 214 also indicates foreign and/or sea service as 9 months and 26 days.  His awards and decorations are listed as National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal and Sharpshooter Badge (Rifle).  

10.  General Orders were published on 9 December 1964 by Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers Europe, awarding the applicant the first award of the Good Conduct Medal.  General Orders published by Headquarters, Presidio of San Francisco, on 31 March 1970 awarded him the second award of the Good Conduct Medal.  His enlisted qualification record (DA Form 20) shows his awards 
and decorations as Vietnam Service Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal, two awards of the Good Conduct Medal, and Sharpshooter Badge (Rifle).

11.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel.  The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  When separation for unfitness was warranted, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

12.  On 19 April 1973 the ADRB denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge.

13.  The applicant served in Vietnam through three campaigns:  Vietnam Counteroffensive, Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase II, and Tet 69 Counteroffensive.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 authorizes award of a bronze service star, based on qualifying service, for each campaign listed in Appendix B of this regulation and states that authorized service stars will be worn on the appropriate service medal.

14.  Army Pamphlet 672-3 lists the time periods for which various units were awarded unit citations, including the Presidential Unit Citation and Meritorious Unit Citation.  The organizations to which the applicant was assigned in Vietnam were awarded the Meritorious Unit Citation, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm, and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal during the periods of his assignment.

15.  Army Regulation 635-5, then in effect, established policy and outlined procedures for the preparation of DD Form 214.  It stated, in pertinent part, that the entry for foreign and/or sea service, item 22c, will show total active duty outside continental limits of the United States for the period covered by the 
DD Form 214.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The processing of this case has been somewhat hampered by the lack of complete information surrounding the applicant’s discharge.  However, based on the information available, it appears that the applicant’s administrative discharge was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time.

2.  The applicant’s service cannot be considered fully honorable considering his misconduct as represented by his court-martial and AWOL.  However, the undesirable discharge appears unduly harsh considering his years of honorable service, including two tours in Vietnam.  A general discharge, under honorable conditions, would be more appropriate in this case.

3.  The applicant served under three campaigns during his service in Vietnam and is entitled to three Bronze Service Stars with his Vietnam Service Medal.

4.  The applicant is entitled to the Meritorious Unit Citation, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm, and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Action Honor Medal based on his assignments with the 69th and 124th Signal Battalions in Vietnam.

5.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 for the period 17 June 1968 to 9 November 1971 correctly shows 9 months and 27 days foreign service.

6.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was separated from the service with a General Discharge Certificate on 9 November 1971.

2.  That the Department of the Army issue to him a General Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 9 November 1971, in lieu of the undesirable discharge he now holds.

3.  That the applicant’s DD Form 214 for the period 17 June 1968 to 9 November 1971 be corrected to show entitlement to the following awards:  Vietnam Service Medal with three Bronze Service Stars, National Defense Service Medal, 
Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, Good Conduct Medal (2nd award), Meritorious Unit Citation, Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm, Republic of Vietnam Civil Action Honor Medal, and Sharpshooter Badge (Rifle).

4.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

________  ________  ________  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AC	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
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.