PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            29 April 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999015649

	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	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Ann M. Campbell 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		Member	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		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 general discharge under the Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) be upgraded to honorable and that his Social Security Number (SSN) be changed to  on his DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214), instead of.

3.  The applicant submitted two applications.  He states, in effect, that his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable based on his combat experiences in Vietnam.  He contends that the Veterans Administration (VA) considers his discharge as “dishonorable” for their purposes and have denied him benefits.  He also contends that he went AWOL because of family problems, financial problems and severe anxiety due to combat.  He requests that the Board upgrade his discharge to honorable to allow him to receive medical care and benefits from the VA.  Additionally, he contends that his SSN is incorrect on his DD Form 215.  In support of his applications, he submits a copy of the VA Administrative Decision dated 1 December 1982, a copy of his DD Form 215, copies of his 201 file and a copy of a Veterans Universal Access Identification card showing the SSN.    

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted on 12 April 1967 for a period of 3 years.  While in basic training, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 10 June 1967 to 11 June 1967.

5.  While in advanced individual training (AIT), NJP was imposed against the applicant on 6 September 1967 for being AWOL from 5 August 1967 to
5 September 1967.  He received his third NJP while in AIT on 26 September 1967 for wrongfully appropriating U.S. Government property (value of $81.20).   

6.  Upon completion of AIT, the applicant was transferred to Vietnam for duty as a light weapons infantryman.  He served in Vietnam from 13 November 1967 to 
26 September 1968 and was awarded the Purple Heart.  While in Vietnam, NJP was again imposed against the applicant for disobeying a lawful order and impersonating a non-commissioned officer.  

7.  On 3 January 1969, the applicant received his fifth NJP for being AWOL from 
18 December 1968 to 21 December 1968, failing to obey a lawful general regulation and breaking restriction.

8.  On 25 February 1969 the applicant was convicted by summary court-martial of being AWOL from 4 January 1969 to 4 February 1969.  He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 8 days.  The convening authority approved the sentence on 28 February 1969.   

9.  On 7 May 1969 the applicant went AWOL and remained away until he was apprehended by civil authorities on 13 January 1971 and turned over to military authorities.

10.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his records indicate that on
26 January 1971, after consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

11.  He underwent a medical separation examination on 25 January 1971 and was cleared for administrative separation.

12.  The applicant’s records also indicate that on 9 February 1971 he was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 2 years and 4 days of total active service and had 654 days lost.

13.  The applicant’s DD Forms 214 and 215 show  as his SSN.    

14.  On 16 September 1977 he applied to the SDRP for an upgrade of his discharge.  The applicant’s discharge was upgraded to general under the SDRP on 7 March 1978.  This decision was based on the fact that the applicant met two of the mandated criterion of the SDRP by virtue of successful completion of a tour in Vietnam and awarded the Purple Heart for wounds received in combat.  On 4 January 1979, as required by Public Law 95-126, the ADRB reviewed the applicant’s case and voted not to change the SDRP discharge.

15.  The Board notes the applicant’s DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) does not show the Purple Heart as an authorized award.  The applicant’s military records contain orders, dated 14 December 1967, which show he was awarded the Purple Heart for wounds sustained on 12 December 1967.  

16.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the 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 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.

17.  The Special Discharge Review Program, often referred to as the “Carter Program,” was announced on 29 March 1977.  The program mandated upgrade of administrative discharges if the applicant met one of seven specified criteria.
Public Law 95-126.  This law, enacted on 8 October 1977, provided generally, that no VA benefits could be granted based on any discharge upgraded under the Ford memorandum of 19 January 1977, or the DOD Special Discharge Review Program.  It required the establishment of uniform published standards which did not provide for automatically granting or denying a discharge upgrade for any case or class of cases.  The services were then required to individually compare each discharge previously upgraded under one of the special discharge review programs to the uniform standards and to affirm only those cases where the case met those standards.

18.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge 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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

19.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained as a result of hostile action.  Substantiating evidence must be provided to verify that the wound was the result of hostile action, the wound must have required treatment, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

2.  The applicant’s discharge was upgraded to general under the SDRP on
7 March 1978.  

3.  The applicant’s contentions were noted by the Board.  However, the Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included five NJP’s, one
summary court-martial and over 650 days lost and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

4.  Contrary to the applicant’s contention that his SSN is incorrect on his
DD Form 215, evidence of record shows his SSN is.  The Board determined that the identification card provided by the applicant was not sufficient evidence to warrant a change in his SSN.  Therefore, he is not entitled to correction of his DD Form 215.

5.  The applicant was awarded the Purple Heart; therefore, he is entitled to correction of his military records to show this award. 

6.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records, but only 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 awarded the Purple Heart.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

AMC____  ESC____  CJP_____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Ann M. Campbell_______
		CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999015649	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990429	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19710209	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 CHAPTER 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	FOR THE GOOD OF THE SERVICE IN LIEU OF COURT-MARTIAL	
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	189	
2.	100	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.