PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           13 January 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-13072
				   AR1998012400

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas N. Kuhn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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 that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he did well until he returned from Vietnam. None of his Article 15s or his court-martial were for really serious offenses.  He realizes he did wrong, but he would like his discharge upgraded so he can be recognized as a Vietnam veteran.

4.  The applicant's military records show that he was born on 8 December 1950.  He enlisted in the Regular Army, with his parent’s consent, on 9 January 1968.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63B (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).  He was discharged on 23 January 1969 for the purpose of immediately reenlisting on    24 January 1969 for assignment to Vietnam.  He served in Vietnam from           15 March 1969 – 15 February 1970 as a wheel vehicle repairman.  The highest grade he held was Specialist Four E-4.  His conduct and efficiency ratings had all been “excellent” until his assignment to Company B, 701st Maintenance Battalion on 4 February 1970, when both ratings were “good.”

5.  The applicant was assigned to Fort Bliss, TX on 30 March 1970.  

6.  On 21 April 1970, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for leaving his post as a sentinel before he was regularly relieved.

7.  On 11 August 1970, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 3 – 6 August 1970.

8.  On 7 August 1970, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of wrongfully sitting down and sleeping on his guard post.  His approved punishment was to be confined at hard labor for 2 months, to be reduced to pay grade E-1, to forfeit $80 pay for 2 months, and to be restricted to his assigned battery for 2 months.  (There is no evidence of record to show that he was actually placed in confinement.)

9.  On 23 September 1970, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for speeding.

10.  On 7 October 1970, a psychiatric evaluation found the applicant to have a passive-aggressive personality disorder that caused him to use poor judgment and that rendered him completely unmotivated for further service.  The evaluation determined him to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and have the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.
11.  The applicant completed a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation.

12.  On 28 December 1970, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for attempting to kick a military policeman in the execution of his duties, breaking restriction and operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

13.  On 28 December 1970, the commander notified the applicant that he was being considered for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation       635-212 for unfitness.  The applicant was advised by counsel of the basis for the action, waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived personal appearance before such a board, waived representation by counsel and elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.

14.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation and the applicant was discharged on 27 January 1971, with a discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), in pay grade E-1.  He had completed 3 years and 15 days of creditable active service and had 3 days of lost time.

15.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness.  An undesirable, UOTHC discharge was normally considered appropriate.

16.  In 1977, the Department of Defense Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) was implemented.  Individuals who received undesirable discharges during the period 4 August 1964 – 28 March 1973 could have their discharges upgraded if they met any one of several criteria:  wounded in combat in Vietnam; received a military decoration other than a service medal; successfully completed an assignment in Southeast Asia; completed alternate service; or received an honorable discharge from a previous tour of military service.  Any upgrading obtained under the program would be an act of forgiveness.

17.  A case with similar circumstances as in this case was reviewed by the SDRP in July 1977 and that applicant’s undesirable discharge was upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations.

2.  The Board does note that the applicant first enlisted one month after his 17th birthday.  He reenlisted shortly after his 18th birthday specifically for assignment to Vietnam.  Except for his last 10 days in Vietnam (which the Board believes is too short a time to adequately determine if his conduct and efficiency was only “good” or otherwise), his conduct and efficiency had been rated “excellent.”

3.  While the applicant’s offenses were numerous, they were relatively minor.

4.  The applicant would have been eligible to apply for a review of his discharge in 1977 under the SDRP.  There is no evidence that he ever did so.  However, a case with similar circumstances as in this case had been reviewed by the SDRP and that applicant’s discharge was upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions.

5.  In view of the foregoing, it would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s records 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 27 January 1971.

2.  That the Department issue to him a General Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 27 January 1971, in lieu of the discharge under other than honorable conditions of the same date now held by him.

BOARD VOTE:  

___THK_  __WTM__  __MVT__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Thomas N. Kuhn
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-13072/AR1998012400	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990113	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19710127	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.