2.  The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable and that his DD Form 214 be corrected to reflect his correct social security number, his Vietnam service and his Vietnam medals.  The applicant states, in effect, that considering his good service, to include service in Vietnam, his discharge was too harsh.  Also, his problems with alcohol were not taken into consideration.  Counsel requests, in effect, that the Board carefully consider the applicant’s request.

3.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 June 1970 with a temporary social security number.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 71B (Clerk Typist). 

4.  On 26 January 1972, the applicant accepted non judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for departing absent without leave (AWOL) from the Overseas Replacement Station, Oakland, CA from 7 October - 15 November 1971.

5.  In July 1972, the applicant was admitted to the Long Binh Drug Treatment Center for abuse of opium, opium derivatives, and heroin.

6.  On 14 August 1972, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for departing AWOL 26 July - 9 August 1972 while in Vietnam.

7.  On or about 30 August 1972, the applicant departed Vietnam.

8.  On 19 December 1972, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for being AWOL 6 October - 2 November 1972.

9.  Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL   2 February - 14 July 1973.

10.  On 19 July 1973, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation  635-200 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He submitted a statement in his own behalf wherein he stated he disliked the Army, it never seemed to work out for him.  He understood what getting an undesirable discharge would mean.  He was “pleased with the discharge.”

11.  On 24 July 1973, the applicant completed a separation physical.  He was found to be qualified for separation.  No mention of either a drug or alcohol problem is mentioned and the applicant stated on his DD Form 93 that he was in excellent health.

12.  On 3 August 1973, the appropriate authority approved his request and directed he receive an undesirable discharge.

13.  On 21 August 1973, he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC.  He had completed 2 years, 7 months and 6 days of creditable active service.  His DD Form 214 shows he had 182 days of lost time (it does not note his two periods of AWOL in 1972 of another 43 days), shows his awards as the National Defense Service Medal and the Sharpshooter (Rifle) Badge and shows that he still had his temporary social security number at the time of his separation.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  

15.  For historical purposes, the Army has an interest in maintaining the accuracy of its records.  The data and information contained in those records should actually reflect the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time the records were created.  In the absence of a showing of material error or injustice, this Board is reluctant to recommend that those records be changed.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s discharge from service was accomplished in accordance with applicable laws and regulations in effect at the time of his separation.  The discharge given was appropriate considering his history of previous AWOLs.

2.  The applicant did serve in Vietnam and his records should have shown he was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal with two bronze service stars and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal.  The criteria for award of those two medals does not require that the service in Vietnam be exemplary.

3.  Evidence shows that the applicant enlisted with and separated with a temporary social security number.  There is no evidence on file or presented to show he ever had another social security number while in the service.

4.  In view of the foregoing, it would be proper to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That block 22c of the DD Form 214 of the individual concerned be corrected to show his foreign service as (Germany/Vietnam) 1 year, 4 months 14 days and block 24 be corrected to add the Vietnam Service Medal with two bronze service stars and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal.

2.  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