PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:            13 May 1999  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999022862

	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. Vic Whitney.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.,		Chairperson	
	Mr. Samuel Calderon		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		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 be upgraded to honorable.

3.  The applicant states that he has suffered for 25 years while trying to raise his 4 children and support his wife.  He had two previous honorable discharges and was not in trouble until he returned from Vietnam.  He had been evacuated in November 1971 because he had a jungle fever.  He did not have a good education and did not understand why he was not assigned to Fort Devens since he was not properly used at Fort Hood either.  He also did not understand his separation board proceedings (He calls it a court-martial).  His application also contains a letter of support from his wife who believes that he suffers from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) although there is no evidence that he had ever been involved in any combat operations.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted and entered active duty on 25 November 1969 as a mental category IV enlistee.  Prior to attending basic training he was assigned to the Army Preparatory Training company.  He completed training as an engine repairer and was assigned to Germany.

5.  On 19 August 1970 he reenlisted for duty in Vietnam.  He was promoted to 
E-4 effective 16 February 1971.   While in Vietnam he reenlisted again for duty at Fort Devens, Massachusetts.  His conduct and efficiency rating through October 1971 were shown as excellent.

6.  Documents in the available record indicate that the applicant was sent from Vietnam to Walter Reed on 11 October 1971 but there is no medical evidence in the available record to substantiate his claim that he was medically evacuated for “jungle fever”.  He was reassigned from Walter Reed to Fort Hood effective 9 January 1972.  His available medical records do show a history of a heart murmur with associated chest pains, hyperventilation, and anxiety.

7.  On 17 February HQDA denied his request for reassignment to Fort Devens in accordance with his reenlistment contract due to unavailability of assignment.  He was informed that he could waive his contract commitment or choose separation on the date of his previous contract.  The applicant elected separation effective 18 August 1973.

8.  On an unspecified date the applicant applied for a hardship discharge to care for his ill father but the Red Cross verified that another son was still at home at the request was not favorably considered.  The applicant was AWOL from 26 February to 8 March 1972 and again from 17 to 20 April 1972.  He was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for the AWOL offenses.  He was punished again under Article 15, UCMJ for AWOL from 1 to 18 August 1972 and absent from his place of duty on 3 and 26 November 1972.

9.  On 17 January 1973, after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged his contemplated separation for unfitness.  He requested consideration of his case by a board of officers in a personal appearance mode with representation by counsel.

10.  The board of officers convened on 26 March 1973.  During testimony the unit commander acknowledged that the applicant’s wife was an epileptic and his father had back injuries.  The first sergeant testified that the applicant was a good worker but unpredictable.  He said that the battalion had disapproved a rehabilitative transfer.  The motor sergeant stated that the applicant had personal problems and his pay was messed up but he had the capability to be a good soldier.  Several other witnesses, including a warrant officer and a lieutenant, stated that the applicant was an average or better worker with many personal problems.  The testimony indicates that he was moved around to various jobs in the company.  At the conclusion of all testimony the applicant’s counsel informed the board of officers that the applicant felt it was in his and the Army’s best interest that he be eliminated from the Army.

11.  Although the board of officers findings and recommendations are not in the available record the separation authority, a major general, approved the findings and recommendations and directed separation with an undesirable discharge.  Effective 25 April 1973 the applicant was separated under provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness.  He had 3 years and 4 months creditable service and 32 days lost time.

12.  The Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), in a 4 to 1 decision in May 1979, voted to deny the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade based on his overall record of service.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and prescribed the procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 applied to separation for unfitness and unsuitability.  Paragraph 13-5(a) 1 provided for the separation for unfitness, which included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature, shirking, and failure to pay just debts.  When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Notwithstanding the fact that the applicant appears to have been separated in accordance with regulations in effect at the time with no indication of any violation of his rights, this Board now believes that it would be in the interest of justice to change the characterization of his discharge to under honorable conditions.

2.  The Board has taken into consideration the applicant’s 2 years and 3 months good and faithful service, including a successful tour in Vietnam, prior to his first AWOL.  The Board also notes his apparent personal and family problems with little or no effort on the part of the leadership to remedy the situation.  His apparent disillusionment with the Army over his broken enlistment contract, low mental category ranking, and anxiety over health issues are also considered to be contributing factors.

3.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by changing the characterization of the discharge, issued effective 25 April 1973, on the individual concerned to under honorable conditions.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__RVO___  __SC___  __KLW__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999022862	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990513	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19730425	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH 13	
DISCHARGE REASON	A51.00	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.