MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:            17 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028345

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred Eichorn		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	

The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In essence, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he is a combat decorated veteran.  
He served in Vietnam with the 11th Aviation Battalion as a gunner and aircraft armament repairman.  Upon return to the United States he departed his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status because he was unable to adjust to non-combat duty.  He later turned himself into military authorities to complete his military service obligation.  He submits a letter written in his behalf by the Vietnam Veterans of America, a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), copies of his DA Form 
20 (Enlisted Qualification Record), separation proceedings documents, a report of medical history, a report of medical examination, extracted copies of morning reports, and a copy of DA Form 458 (Charge Sheet).

COUNSEL STATES:  That the applicant’s distinguished combat service, rapid advancement to pay grade E-5 and his limited education are mitigating circumstances that best characterize his service as honorable.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show: 

On 23 October 1968, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  Prior to enlisting he completed 8 years of formal education.  He completed basic and advanced training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 
45J (Aircraft Armament Repairman).  

The evidence of record shows that he was AWOL from 29 March-4 April 1970.  There is no further evidence concerning this period of AWOL in the available records.  

On 13 April 1970, he was assigned to the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).  On 
18 December 1970, he was promoted to pay grade E-5.  On 21 March 1971, he was reassigned to the United States and he took 30 days leave.

On 24 April 1971, he was declared AWOL when he failed to report to his new unit at Yuma Proving Grounds, Arizona.  He remained AWOL until he turned himself in at Seneca Army Depot, Seneca, New York, on 12 July 1971.

On 12 August 1971, he was assigned to the Personnel Control Facility (PCF), Fort Dix, New Jersey.  He then was AWOL from the PCF from 25 August-27 October 1971. 

On 28 October 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for the above periods of AWOL.  On 2 November 1971, he consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He was advised that the offenses for which he was charged could lead to a UD.  He authenticated a statement with his own signature in which he stated that he understood the ramifications of receiving a UD.  The available records do not contain a statement that he submitted in his own behalf.

Both his unit commander and his intermediate commander recommended separation with a UD.  On 23 December 1971, competent authority approved his request. 

On 25 April 1972, he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service with a UD.  He had completed 
3 years and 11 days of active military service and he had 173 days lost time due to being AWOL. 

His DD Form 214 shows that he is entitled to the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, and the RVN Campaign Medal.

However, his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows that he is also entitled to the Air Medal with “V” Device, the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) with “V” Device, the ARCOM with First Oak Leaf Cluster, and the Oversea Service Bar. 

Department of the Army 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) shows the applicant is entitled to award of the RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation based on Department of the Army General Order 6, dated 1974.

Department of the Army 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) shows the applicant is entitled to award of the RVN Civil Actions Medal First Class based on Department of the Army General Order 55, dated 1974.

He is also entitled to 3 bronze service stars for his service in the RVN between 13 April 1970-18 November 1971.  He served in the RVN during the RVN Winter Spring 1970 Campaign, during the DA Secretary Counter Offensive Phase and during the RVN Counter Offensive Phase VII. 

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that the Army Commendation Medal may be awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving in any capacity with the Army after 6 December 1941, distinguished himself or herself by heroism, meritorious achievement or meritorious service.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.

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

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Air Medal is awarded in time of war for heroism and for meritorious achievement or service while participating in aerial flight.  This award is primarily intended for personnel on flying status, but may also be awarded to those personnel whose combat duties require them to fly, for example personnel in the attack elements of units involved in air-land assaults against an armed enemy.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.

Army Regulation 670-1, in effect at the time governs the requirements for the Oversea Service Bar.  In pertinent part, it provides that a bar is authorized for wear for each period of active Federal service as a member of the U.S. Army outside of the continental limits of the United States. There are special provisions regarding authorization for the Oversea Service Bar for service in a hostile fire zone and for combining service to calculate award of the bars.

There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge.  

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.  Although, an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a UD was then considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

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 directed and the reason for discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s service in the RVN to include his awards and decorations are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

4.  The Board has taken into consideration the applicant’s contention that he rapidly advanced in spite of his limited educational background.  However, his rapid advancement does not provide a basis for upgrading the discharge to the characterization that he is requesting.

5.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he was unable to adjust to duty after serving in a combat environment.  However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance that would have helped him adjust without committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.  In fact, he deliberately went AWOL before reporting to his first duty station upon his return to the United States from the RVN.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request.

7.  The applicant is entitled to have his record corrected to show that he was awarded the Air Medal with “V” Device, the Army Commendation Medal with “V” Device, The Army Commendation Medal with First Oak Leaf Cluster, the Oversea Service Bar, the RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation and the RVN Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

NOTE:  Request that the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA), Support Division, St. Louis furnish the individual concerned a DD Form 215, (Correction to DD Form 214) to correct item 24 of his DD Form 214 to show that he was awarded the Air Medal with “V” Device, the ARCOM with “V” Device, the ARCOM with1 Oak Leaf Clover, the Oversea Service Bar, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation and the RVN Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__cmf___  __fe____  ___rjw___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028345	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000517	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720425	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the Good of the Service	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A70.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.