PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            25 January 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000042588

	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	
	Ms. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz 		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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general discharge (GD).

3.  The applicant states that he served his country and fought in Vietnam.  He believes that his youth, immaturity, and lack of coping skills to deal with his family problems are mitigating factors to his misconduct.  

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 1 November 1966, giving him an ETS (expiration of term of service) date of 31 October 1969.  Following completion of all military training, he was awarded MOS (military occupational specialty) 76W, Petroleum Storage Specialist, and was assigned to the 488th Transportation Company, Fort Eustis, Virginia.

5.  On 4 October 1967, the applicant received orders assigning him to the Republic of Vietnam and he served there from 3 November 1967 to 3 November 1968.  On 3 November 1968, the applicant departed the Republic of Vietnam enroute to Fort Lee, Virginia.

6.  The applicant’s record shows he accepted two nonjudicial punishments and was convicted by a special court martial for three periods of absence without leave, or AWOL, from 7 July to 27 October 1969, 3-16 April 1969, and 21 January to 17 February 1969.  On 13 November 1969, he was assigned to the Army Special Processing Battalion, Fort Knox, Kentucky. 

7.  On 29 January 1970, he was reassigned to the 507th Transportation Company and on 31 March 1970, the applicant departed his unit in an AWOL status and remained absent until 30 May 1970.  On 10 June 1970, the applicant was charged with AWOL.  On 18 June 1970, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  Both company and intermediate commanders recommended approval of the chapter 10 request with a UD.

8.  On 30 June 1970, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed issuance of a UD and a reduction in rank to 
private/E1.  Accordingly, on 6 July 1970, the applicant was discharged after completing 2 years, 8 months, and 6 days of creditable service and 175 days of lost time prior to ETS and 162 days subsequent to normal ETS.  His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows that he was credited with award of the Bronze Star Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal, and Sharpshooter Badge (Rifle).

9.  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 is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

10.  Chapter 3 of Army Regulation 635-200 provides, in effect, that the characterization of service will be based upon the overall quality of the soldier’s service.  The quality of the service will be determined according to standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty for military personnel.  Conviction by a general court-martial or by more than one special court-martial does not automatically rule out the awarding of an honorable discharge.  An honorable discharge may be awarded when, in effect, the applicant’s misconduct is outweighed by prior honorable service.

11.  On 4 April 1977, the DOD implemented the Special Discharge Review Program, or SDRP, whereby the military services reviewed all less than fully honorable administrative discharges issued between 4 August 1964 and 28 March 1973.  In the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, the program mandated a discharge upgrade to either honorable or general for any individual who:  had completed a normal tour of duty in Southeast Asia; had been wounded in action; had been awarded a military decoration other than a service medal; had received an honorable discharge from a previous period of service, or had a satisfactory record of military service at least 24 months prior to discharge. Other factors in consideration of a discharge upgrade included possible personal problems which may have contributed to the acts which led to the discharge, as well as a record of good post-service citizenship since the time of discharge.

12.  There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge or that the ADRB ever reviewed the applicant's discharge under the SDRP.

13.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, for award of a bronze service star, based on qualifying service, for each campaign listed in Appendix B of this regulation and states that authorized bronze service stars will be worn on the appropriate service medal.  The applicant served in 

Vietnam during the following campaigns:  Vietnam Counteroffensive, Phase III, 1 June 1967--29 January 1968; TET Counteroffensive, 30 January 1967--30 June 1968; Vietnam Counteroffensive, Phase IV, 2 April 1968--30 June 1968; and Vietnam Counteroffensive, Phase V, 1 July 1968--1 November 1968.  He is authorized 4 bronze service stars on his Vietnam Service Medal.

14.  Army Regulation 670-1, in effect at the time, governs the requirements for the Oversea Service Bar (OSB).  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 Overseas Service Bar for service in a hostile fire zone and for combining service to calculate award of the bars.  For Vietnam service, one overseas service bar is authorized for each period of 6 months active Federal service as a member of a U.S. Service in Vietnam from 1 July 1958 to 28 March 1973.  Both the month of arrival and the month of departure from Vietnam are counted as a whole months for credit toward the overseas service bar.

15.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the National Defense Service Medal is awarded for honorable active service for any period between 27 July 1950 through 27 July 1954, 1 January 1961 through 14 August 1974, and 2 August 1990 through 30 November 1995.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant qualified for a review of his UD under the provisions of the SDRP, but there is no record of that review having taken place.  Had the ADRB reviewed the applicant under the SDRP, it is reasonable to presume that his discharge would have been upgraded to a general discharge or a fully honorable discharge based upon at least two criteria of this program (12-month tour of duty in Southeast Asia and receipt of the Bronze Star Medal).

2.  The applicant also qualified for award of the National Defense Service Medal, 2 Overseas Service Bars, and 4 Bronze Service Stars for his Vietnam Service Medal, but they are not listed on his DD Form 214.

3.  After carefully reviewing the applicant’s record and considering the misconduct (AWOL) committed by him, the Board concluded that the applicant’s misconduct was mitigated by his 12-month honorable tour of duty in Vietnam, youth and the award of the Bronze Star Medal and should have been upgraded under the provisions of the SDRP.

4.  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 voiding the Undesirable Discharge, date 6 July 1970, now held by the individual concerned and by issuing to him a General, Under Honorable Conditions Discharge, dated 6 July 1970.

2.  That the new DD Form 214 of the individual concerned show that he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal with 4 Bronze Service Stars, Vietnam Campaign Medal, two Overseas Service Bars, and a Sharpshooter Badge (Rifle).

BOARD VOTE:  

__jh____  __le_____  __kah___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		    ___June Hajjar_____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000025888	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010125	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700706	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	144.8600	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DASA	
ISSUES         1.	144.9201	
2.	144.	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.