PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:             17 June 1999     
	DOCKET NUMBER:     AR1999023201

	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. Jennifer L. Prater 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		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 general.

3.  The applicant states that the character of discharge is too harsh for the offense (unsuitability) considering that he had completed two tours honorably, that he had earned several medals and that he served in the Reserve between his active tours because he wanted to continue serving his country in some capacity.  He contends that his superiors considered him a good soldier but they were frustrated because he did not go to jump school.  He also contends that a Chief Warrant Officer (helicopter pilot) contacted him about being transferred into his unit because he knew the applicant was a good soldier and that he was approached by a colonel to be his driver but his unit chief would not release him.   
4.  The applicant’s military records show that he was inducted on 6 February 1967.  

5.  On 4 October 1967 the applicant was convicted by special court-martial of being AWOL from 31 August 1967 to 18 September 1967 and breaking restriction.  He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 2 months and to forfeit $37.00 per month for 2 months.  The convening authority approved the sentence but suspended the confinement for 2 months on 14 October 1967.  

6.  The applicant was transferred to Vietnam and served as a petroleum storage specialist from 22 November 1967 to 13 November 1968 and was honorably discharged on 18 November 1968 and transferred to the Army Reserve.   

7.  The applicant enlisted on 9 November 1970 for a period of 3 years.  He was transferred to Alaska for duty as a petroleum storage specialist on 30 November 1970 and was honorably discharged on 8 July 1971 for immediate reenlistment.     
8.  The applicant reenlisted on 9 July 1971 and served in Vietnam from
11 September 1971 to 8 September 1972.  Between 9 September 1971 and 
17 May 1973, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on
7 occasions.  

9.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his records indicate that on 9 July 1973 he was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 for unsuitability due to apathy, defective attitudes and inability to expend effort constructively.  He had served 6 years,
4 months and 10 days of total active service and had 25 days lost due to AWOL. 

10.  Headquarters Americal Division General Orders Number 8345, dated
1 November 1968, shows the applicant was awarded the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service in connection with military operations against a hostile force from November 1967 to November 1968.  The Board notes this award is not shown on the applicant’s DD Forms 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) as an authorized award.

11.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that Board’s 15-year statue of limitations.
 
12.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness or unsuitability.  Chapter 
13, paragraph 13-5b(3), provides for discharge due to unsuitability because of apathy, defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively.  The regulation also states that when separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as warranted by his military record.  

13.  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.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  On 9 July 1973, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions for unsuitability.  The regulation in effect at the time states that the applicant would be entitled to an honorable or general discharge.  Considering the applicant’s extensive disciplinary record, the Board concludes that his service did not then meet and does not now meet the standards of honorable service as defined in Army Regulation 635-200.  In view of the foregoing the Board determined that the applicant is entitled to a general discharge.

2.  The applicant was awarded the Army Commendation Medal; therefore, he is entitled to correction of his military records to show this award. 

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

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was awarded a general discharge and his character of service was “under honorable conditions” and to show award of the Army Commendation Medal.

BOARD VOTE:  

JLP_____  TAP____  EWL_____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Jennifer L. Prater____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999023201	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990617	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19730709	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 CHAPTER 5	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNSUITABILITY DUE TO APATHY, DEFECTIVE ATTITUDES AND INABILITY TO EXPEND EFFORT CONSTRUCTIVELY	
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.