PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:                 15 July 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:         AR1999021569

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater 		Member	
	Ms. Debra Williams		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 be upgraded to honorable and his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) with an effective date of 15 February 1972 be corrected to show all awards and decorations to which he is entitled for his service in Vietnam.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge was too harsh considering the nature of the offense.  He also states that his DD Form 214 (with an effective date of 15 February 1972) does not show his correct number of Air Medals to which he is entitled.  In support of his application he submits copies of orders awarding him the Air Medal with number “14” and “V” Device and a copy of his DD Form 214 with an effective date of 6 December 1967.

4.  The applicant’s military records show he entered active duty on 4 November 1963 as an indirect infantry fire crewman.  He continued to serve until he was honorably discharged on 1 December 1964 in order to reenlist.  He reenlisted on
2 December 1964 as a light weapons infantryman.  He served in Vietnam from 19 December 1965 to 22 December 1966 and from 3 May 1967 to 7 December 1967 and was honorably discharged on 7 December 1967.

5.  After a break in service, he reenlisted on 18 October 1968.  He served in Vietnam from 20 June 1969 to 19 June 1970.

6.  He was convicted by a special court-martial on 30 June 1971 for being AWOL from 5 April 1971 to 4 June 1971 (60 days).  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3 and confinement for 26 days.

7.  The applicant departed AWOL on 15 July 1971 and remained AWOL until
27 October 1971 (105 days).

8.  Charges were preferred against the applicant on 2 November 1971 for the 
aforementioned AWOL offense.

9.  On 22  November 1971, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offense charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

10.  The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 11 January 1972 and was found qualified for separation.

11.  On 24 January 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 15 February 1972.  He had a total of 7 years, 4 months, and 12 days of creditable service and 191 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

12.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 2 May 1980 for an upgrade of his discharge.  However, the ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and denied his request on 23 October 1981.

13.  The applicant’s personnel records do not contain a DD Form 214 covering the period 18 October 1968 to 15 February 1972.

14.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 (with an effective date of 1 December 1964) shows he was awarded the Marksmanship Qualification Badge (Rifle) and the Expert Qualification Badge (106 RR).

15.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 (with an effective date of 6 December 1967) shows he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Air Medal with 4 Oak Leaf Clusters (a total of 5 awards of the Air Medal), the Vietnam Campaign Medal, the Marksmanship Qualification Badge (M-14), the Expert Qualification Badge (106 RR) and the Marksmanship Qualification Badge (45 Pistol).

16.  The applicant’s provides orders which show that he received nine additional
awards of the Air Medal (5th through 14th Oak Leaf Clusters).  The applicant’s personnel records show he received two additional awards of the Air Medal for a grand total of 17 awards of the Air Medal, two of which were with “V” Device.

17.  The Board notes that the applicant was awarded the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with Palm Unit Citation by Department of the Army General Order 46, dated 1969.  This award is not shown on his discharge document.

18.  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. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

19.  U.S Army Vietnam (USARV) Regulation 672-1 (Decorations and Awards) provided, in pertinent part, guidelines for award of the Air Medal.  It established that passenger personnel who did not participate in an air assault were not 
eligible for the award based upon sustained operations.  It defined terms and provided guidelines for the award based upon the number and types of missions or hours.  Twenty five Category I missions (air assault and equally dangerous missions) and accrual of a minimum of 25 hours of flight time while engaged in Category I missions was the standard established for which sustained operations were deemed worthy of recognition by an award of the Air Medal.  However, the regulation was clear that these guidelines were considered only a departure point.  Nothing created an entitlement to the award.  There was no provision for making the award simply because an aircraft was struck by enemy fire.

20.  Arabic numerals are now used instead of oak leaf clusters for the second and succeeding awards.  The numeral 2 denotes the second award.)

21.  The bronze “V” device indicates acts of heroism involving conflict with an armed enemy.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  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.  

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  Records show the applicant is entitled to 17 awards of the Air Medal and award of the “V” Device; therefore, his records should be corrected to show the Air Medal with numeral “16” and with “V” Device.

4.  The applicant was awarded the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with Palm Unit Citation; therefore, he is entitled to correction of military records to show this award.

5.  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 Air Medal with numeral “16” and with “V” Device and the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with Palm Unit Citation.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

GDP____  JLP_____  DW_____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		George D. Paxson______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999021569	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990715	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720215	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT/DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  191		
2.  64		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.