PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           7 October 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999023304

	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. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		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 informed he was on orders to go back to Vietnam (which turned out to be a joke played on him by someone in personnel). That would have made 5 years in Vietnam.  He tried to get out of going but he was told his military occupational specialty (MOS) was critical.  He then got into trouble resulting in an Article 15 and was discharged.  He has been trying since 1974 to upgrade his discharge.  He received many unit citations while in the service, four Bronze Stars, and was even put in for a Purple Heart.  He was good at his job.  The President pardoned all the draft dodgers.  He is not in good health and would appreciate a second chance.  He provides his DD Forms 214 as supporting evidence.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 July 1964.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded MOS 293.10 (Radio Relay Operator).  He was awarded the expert qualification badge, rifle M-1; the marksman qualification badge, rifle M-14; the marksman qualification badge pistol .45 caliber; and the expert qualification badge, rifle M-16.

5.  The applicant was honorably discharged once for the purpose of immediately reenlisting on 24 September 1965 and again for the purpose of immediately reenlisting on 24 September 1969.

6.  The applicant accepted non-judicial punishment on seven occasions during his military service including three times during his last period of enlistment.  (The last Article 15, for being absent without leave, is not available but is noted in his elimination packet.)

7.  The applicant served three tours in Vietnam and was assigned to about ten different signal units for varying periods including the 324th Signal Company from 25 October 1967 – 24 March 1968; Company D, 41st Signal Battalion from        25 March 1968 – 20 September 1968; the 535th Signal Company from                22 December 1971 – 26 January 1972; and the 331st Signal Company from      27 January – 13 February 1972.  His DA Form 20, Personnel Qualification Record (PQR) shows his conduct and efficiency were rated as “fair” during one unit assignment; as “good” and “excellent,” respectively, during another unit assignment; and as “satisfactory” during another unit assignment.  He is credited with serving during nine campaigns.

8.  The applicant’s PQR shows that after his return stateside after his last Vietnam tour he was a patient at Letterman Hospital for several weeks; however, there is no evidence of record to show he was ever wounded.

9.  Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with wrongfully having in his possession one ounce, more or less, of heroin.

10.  On 28 July 1972, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation  635-200 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He submitted no statement in his own behalf 

11.  The battalion commander noted in his endorsement to the request that the applicant had been treated by Darnell Army Hospital for drug abuse and had failed in his attempts toward rehabilitation.

12.  On 14 August 1972, the appropriate authority approved his request and directed he receive a discharge UOTHC.

13.  On 30 August 1972, 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 7 years, 11 months and   26 days of creditable active service and had 57 days of lost time. 

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 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.  

15.  Army Pamphlet 672-3 shows the 324th Signal Company was awarded the Meritorious Unit Citation (MUC) for the period 25 October 1967 – 31 May 1968; Company D, 41st Signal Battalion was awarded the MUC for the period 1 October 1967 – 30 September 1969; the 535th Signal Company was awarded the MUC for the period 1 October 1970 – 25 September 1972; and the 331st Signal Company was awarded the MUC for the period 15 October 1969 – 25 February 1972.

16.  Army Regulation 635-5 prescribes the separation documents prepared for soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service.  It establishes standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  The current regulation provides for the entering of decorations or medals awarded or authorized for all periods of service.  At the time, it provided for the entering of decorations or medals awarded or authorized only for the period of service covered by the DD Form 214.
17.  Army Regulation 670-1 prescribes the authorization for wear of uniforms and prescribes the awards, insignia and accouterments authorized for wear on the uniform.  In pertinent part, it states that a soldier may wear a unit award permanently if the individual was assigned to and present for duty with the unit any time during the period cited.  A soldier may wear the unit award temporarily if the individual was not present with the unit during the period cited but was subsequently assigned to the unit.  

18.  Army Regulation 600-8-2 prescribes Army policy and criteria concerning individual military awards.  It states that one bronze service star is authorized for wear with the Vietnam Service Medal for each campaign.  A silver star is worn instead of five bronze service stars.

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.

2.  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.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.  The type of discharge was and still is appropriate.

3.  The Board appreciates the applicant’s willingness to serve three tours in Vietnam but also notes that his service there was not entirely exemplary.  Two of his Article 15s were received while there, his conduct and efficiency were not always rated “excellent,” and he did not receive any personal awards or decorations.  While there is evidence to show he was hospitalized after his last tour in Vietnam, there is no evidence to show it was as a result of being wounded in action; therefore, there is no evidence to show he would have been eligible for award of the Purple Heart.  

4.  However, it appears that the applicant’s honorable discharge of 24 September 1965 should be considered as having been issued as a complete and unconditional separation.  The circumstances of his honorable discharge on       24 September 1965 may have worked an injustice upon him by depriving him of consideration for certain VA benefits for the preceding period of service.

5.  The Board also notes that none of the applicant’s DD Forms 214s show the MUCs he was entitled to wear permanently and, in accordance with the regulation then in effect, his last DD Form 214 only lists four bronze service stars. In the interest of clarity and as an exception to the regulatory policy then in effect, the Board concludes that all of his authorized awards should be listed on his last DD Form 214.

6.  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:

     a.  amending the applicant’s DD Form 214 for the period ending 30 August 1972 to show he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal with one silver and four bronze service stars, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, the Meritorious Unit Citation with 3 oak leaf clusters, the expert qualification badge rifle M-1, the marksman qualification badge rifle M-14, the marksman qualification badge pistol .45 caliber, and the expert qualification badge rifle M-16; and

     b.  showing that the applicant was eligible for a complete and unconditional separation from the military service at the time of his honorable discharge on     24 September 1965.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__lls___  __mdm___  __cjs___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			Luther L. Santiful
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999013304	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991007	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720830	
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.