PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           21 July 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999014911

	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. G. E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Curtis W. Barbee		Chairperson	
	Mr. James M. Alward		Member	
	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		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 discharge be upgraded or affirmed.

3.  The applicant states he knows that he acted inappropriately but asks that the Board grant him relief based upon his subsequent honorable service with the National Guard and his other post service conduct.  He continues to contend that his discharge was unduly harsh and that his periods of AWOL were justifiable due to poor medical treatment and abuse by his drill sergeant.  He contends that he was immature and had come from a broken home, which contributed to his inappropriate actions. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he entered active duty on 23 July 1969 and was discharged 10 April 1970 under Army Regulation 635-212 with an undesirable discharge.  He had 160 days of creditable service and 101 days lost due to three periods of AWOL and a period of confinement.  The applicant completed a term of alternative service and was granted a clemency discharge on 19 April 1976.  On 5 April 1977 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded this discharge to general under the Department of Defense Special Discharge Review Program.  Applications for further upgrade or to affirm his general discharge were denied by the ADRB on 25 May 1978 and by this Board on 19 April 1989.

5.  The applicant’s service medical records show that he had had an injury to his left knee prior to service.  At the time of induction he under went an orthopedic examination which indicated no residuals or abnormalities were found.  The applicant complained of problems with this knee on numerous occasions and had been give a knee brace and placed on temporary profile at least twice.  The applicant continued to complain of pain in the knee and was afforded an orthopedic consultation that again found no objective signs of a disability.  Three days later another examination revealed a probable torn left medial meniscus with x-ray findings of a needle, having no discernable penetration site, in the medial aspect of the distal femur at the superior pole of the petella.  An arthrogram was ordered, however, there is no record of this exam being completed or of any other action following the discovery of the needle.  The only medical records after the examination date are an x-ray for a suspected bony mass in the right foot and his discharge physical that showed continued complaints of knee pain.

6.  Post service the applicant obtained employment as a deputy sheriff.  On 20 November 1989, after receiving the necessary waiver due to the nature of his prior service, he entered the Alabama National Guard.  The applicant served as a helicopter repairman and crew chief with collateral duties as the unit’s Alcohol and Drug Abuse Coordinator.  He served until 19 November 1995 when he was deemed not medically qualified for reenlistment and was released from the Army National Guard and Reserves with an honorable discharge.  
7.  The applicant submits an extensive packet of information with his request for reconsideration.  Included in this packet are VA records of surgical correction of a torn left medial meniscus and that agency’s bar to benefits decision; copies of his Clemency Discharge packet; the packet for a waiver for entry into the National Guard; excerpts of his records from the Alabama National Guard to include his honorable discharge; copies of his civilian training and awards; and 11 letters of recommendation and support.

8.  The packet of information related to his post-service civilian work shows that he served with distinction as a police officer.  In addition to his regular duties he was also an Emergency Medical Technician and worked with the youth drug and alcohol treatment and prevention programs, D.A.R.E.  The records show that he continued to work with this program even after he was forced to leave the National Guard and retire from the sheriff’s office due to his medical conditions.

9.  The packets of letters of reference from military personnel rank him as well above average in his willingness to serve and enthusiasm for his duties.  Those from his former colleagues on the police force describe him as a hard worker who is effective and extremely capable.

10.  Department of Defense Directive 1332.28, Discharge Review Board Procedures and Standards, establishes uniform policies, procedures, and standards for the review of discharges or dismissals by the Armed Forces Discharge Review Boards.  Enclosure (4) to the directive deals with discharges review standards and includes in areas of consideration, “post service conduct to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the performance of the applicant during the period of service which is the subject of the discharge review.”

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s original discharge and the subsequent actions were proper and appropriate at the time. 

2.  The applicant has submitted no documentation to support his contention of his coming from an abusive or broken home nor of abusive treatment while on active duty.  Therefore, the Board rejects these considerations as mitigating factors in his failure to adhere regulations or as mitigation of his repeated periods of AWOL.

3.  While there is no evidence that the applicant was treated for his knee problem while he was AWOL, his service medical records clearly show that he was suffering from a knee problem which was originally not completely diagnosed.  It was not until an x-ray several months after his original complaint that the nature of his problems was uncovered.  The x-ray finding of a needle in his leg at the knee, with no discernable penetration site three days after he was found to have no discernable disability, lends credence to the applicant’s contention that his concerns about his knee were not being taken seriously. 

4.  The applicant’s honorable service in the National Guard and his contributions to society are to be commended.  The above noted factors do indicate that the current discharge is no longer equitable, however, given the applicant’s repeated offenses and limited creditable service, it is not appropriate to characterize his service as fully honorable.

5.  Although he has received VA medical treatment, the applicant’s current discharge does not convey entitlement to all veteran’s benefits.  In light of his post service accomplishments it is appropriate to correct his records to reflect the award of a general discharge under secretarial authority thereby entitling him to all veteran’s benefits.

6.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, the interest of justice would be served by correcting 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 voiding the 5 April 1977 general discharge under the Department of Defense Special Discharge Review Program currently held by the individual concerned and by issuing him a general discharge by reason of Secretarial Authority of the same date.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__CWB__  __JMA__  __RGH__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_____Curtis W. Barbee__
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999014911	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990721 	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD, (UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19770522	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR   	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT partial	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A92.22	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.