PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            17 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000035413

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred Eichorn		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).   

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he earned his medals in Vietnam and he would like credit for this honorable service. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he initially entered the Regular Army on 29 September 1962.  Over the course of his career the applicant completed two combat tours in Vietnam and had advanced through the rank of specialist 6/E-6.  His awards and decorations include: the Parachutist Badge; the National Defense Service Medal; the Vietnam Service Medal; the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal/with 60 device; the Bronze Star Medal; the Air Medal; and two Army Good Conduct Medals.  He held military occupational specialty 94B (Cook) and the special qualification indicator of P (Parachutist), which he earned by completing the basic airborne course at Fort Benning, Georgia  in 1963.

5.  The applicant’s record is free of any record of disciplinary problems prior to beginning his last period of service on 28 February 1971, at which time he had already completed 8 years, 4 months, and 29 days of honorable active service. 

6.  A separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the events which led to the applicant’s discharge are not a part of the record.  The record does include a Department of the Army Form 268 (Report of Suspension of Personnel Actions) which contains a synopsis which indicates that the applicant was pending court-martial charges for alleged indecent acts with minors.  This allegation is not elaborated on anywhere else in the service record and it is unclear if this was in fact the charge which ultimately led to the applicant’s discharge.  

7.  The evidence of record does include a DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) issued to the applicant on 
14 June 1973, for the period of service under review.  This document was signed by the applicant and identifies that he was discharged, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  It also shows that he had completed 2 years, 3 months, and 
16 days of his current enlistment, that his service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions, and that he was issued an UD Certificate.  

8.  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.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable or general discharge is authorized.  At the time of the applicant’s discharge an UD discharge was authorized.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge, the record does include a properly constituted DD Form 214, which was authenticated by the applicant.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the Board presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.  

2.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board presumed that the applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with the applicable regulations.  

3.  The Board was also satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall quality of the applicant’s last period of service does not warrant recharacterization of this discharge.  

4.  Based on the applicant’s overall record of service and the fact that the chain of command did not view the offenses as serious enough to warrant denying the applicant’s request for separation in order to proceed with a court-martial, the Board determined that the applicant should be credited with his prior honorable service between 29 September 1962 and 27 February 1971, which would include his two combat tours in Vietnam.

5.  The Board found that to do otherwise would work an injustice upon the applicant and his heirs by permanently attaching a stigma to his total military service, and possibly denying them the right to certain VA benefits when the overwhelming majority of his service was honorable.

6.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and in recognition of his previous years of good service, it would be appropriate and proper to consider the applicant’s honorable discharge of 27 February 1971 as a complete and unconditional separation from military service.  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 showing that the individual concerned was eligible for a complete and unconditional separation from the military service at the time of his honorable discharge on 27 February 1971.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

___cmf __  ___fe___  __rjw____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Calvin M. Fowler_____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035413	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/05/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1973/06/14	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C10	
DISCHARGE REASON	Good of the Service/In lieu of Trial by CM	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PARTIAL 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.