PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           16 December 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999021185

	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. Fred K. McCoy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.

3.  The applicant states that he was not given the type of help he needed upon returning from Vietnam.  He served his country honorably until all the harassment started upon his return.  They were in such a hurry to get rid of Vietnam veterans that they did not even fill out his DD Form 214 correctly.  He was a Sergeant,     E-5.  He never even had an Article 15.  He was supposed to get the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star Medal with “V” device but his unit was deactivated.  He provides his two DD Forms 214 as supporting evidence.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 March 1970.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 36C (Lineman).  On       4 November 1970, he was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediately reenlisting on 5 November 1970 for overseas assignment to Vietnam.  

5.  The applicant was assigned to Vietnam on 30 January 1971 where he performed duties as a lineman.  He was promoted to Sergeant, E-5 on                6 November 1971.  He was reassigned to Fort Carson, CO on 24 January 1972.  

6.  There is no evidence in the available medical records to show that the applicant had ever been treated for a wound while in Vietnam.  There is no evidence to show that he had been recommended for award of the Bronze Star Medal with “V” device.  His DA Form 20, Personnel Qualification Record shows he had been awarded the Vietnam Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with 60 device, two overseas bars and the Tech Service Honor Medal (and the National Defense Service Medal).

7.  On 9 May 1972, the applicant requested reassignment back to Vietnam.  His company commander recommended disapproval of his request because of a shortage of personnel in his military occupational specialty (either in the unit or on the installation).  Further endorsements to this request are not available.

8.  On 12 September 1972, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 28 July – 27 August 1972.  His punishment was a forfeiture of $156.00 pay for 2 months and a reduction to the grade of Specialist Four, E-4.

9.  The applicant departed AWOL again from 19 September 1972 – 25 March 1973 and from 27 April – 7 June 1973, when he was apprehended by civil authorities.  

10.  The court-martial charges and the discharge proceedings packet are not available.
11.  The applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

12.  The applicant received a mental status evaluation and was found mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right and to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.

13.  On 19 July 1973, the applicant 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 a total of 2 years, 7 months and    28 days of creditable active service and had 260 days of lost time.  His DD Form 214 for this period does not list any awards or decorations.

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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate; however, the discharge authority may direct an honorable or a general discharge.  The member will not necessarily be denied an honorable discharge solely by reasons of a specific number of convictions by courts-martial or actions under Article 15.  It is the pattern of behavior and not the isolated instance which should be considered the governing factor in determination of character of service to be awarded.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

15.  Army Regulation 600-200, in effect at the time, prescribed policies for the enlisted personnel management system including promotions and reductions.  In pertinent part, it provided for the reduction of a soldier to the lowest enlisted grade when the separation authority determined that he or she was to be discharged under other than honorable conditions.

16.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides policy and criteria concerning individual military decorations.  In pertinent part, it states that the Purple Heart is awarded to any member of an Armed Force who has been wounded or killed in any action against an enemy of the United States.  The wound must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record.

17.  The Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act (FY96 NDAA) provided that the Service concerned will review a proposal for the award of, or upgrading of, a decoration that would not otherwise be authorized to be awarded based upon time limitations previously established by law.  Requests for consideration of awards should be supported by sworn affidavits, eyewitness statements, certificates and related documents.  Corroborating evidence is best provided by commanders, leaders and fellow comrades who had personal knowledge of the circumstances and events relative to the request.  A request for award not previously submitted in a timely fashion will only be considered under this provision if the request has been referred to the Service Secretary from a Member of Congress.  The burden and costs for researching and assembling documentation to support approval of requested awards and decorations rests with the requester.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The Board notes the applicant’s prior period of AWOL for which he accepted an Article 15 and a reduction in grade.  Presumably his discharge was related to his second two periods of AWOL, one of which was for a 188-day period, in which case the Board concludes that a discharge UOTHC was and still is appropriate.

2.  There is no evidence in the applicant’s available medical records to show he was wounded while in Vietnam, he has provided no such evidence, and so there is no evidence to show he is eligible for award of the Purple Heart.  

3.  If the applicant feels he was or should have been recommended for award of the Bronze Star Medal with “V” device, a reconstructed award recommendation must be prepared.  DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) must be completed with information pertaining to him and his unit of assignment during the period(s) for which he is being recognized.  A narrative of the action(s) for which he is being recognized is required.  Finally, it is important that the recommendation be accompanied by eyewitness statements attesting to the act(s) of valor performed, sworn affidavits, certificates and any other related documentation.  The request(s), which should be mailed to Commander, United States Army Personnel Command, ATTN:  TAPC-PDA, 200 Stovall Street, Suite 7S07, Alexandria, VA  22332-0471, will be considered only if it has been referred to the Secretary of the Army by a Member of Congress.

4.  The Board does note, however, that the applicant’s DD Form 214 for the period ending 19 July 1973 does not show any of the awards or decorations to which he is entitled.

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 amending the applicant’s DD Form 214 for the period ending         19 July 1973 to add the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with 60 device, two overseas bars and the Tech Service Honor Medal.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__fkm___  __rvo___  __sk____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			Fred K. McCoy
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999021185	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991216	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1973/09/19	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Ch 10 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.