PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           25 January 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000043377

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		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 discharge be upgraded to general under honorable conditions.

3.  The applicant states that he could not handle the way people treated him or  their disapproval of the war and his actions in it.  He tried talking to the chaplain but the chaplain didn’t help.  Finally he could not take anymore and all he could think about was leaving.  He provides two character witness statements as supporting evidence.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he was inducted into the Army on 12 July 1967.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13A (Field Artillery Basic).  He was honorably discharged on 16 April 1968 for the purpose of immediately reenlisting on 17 April 1968.

5.  Between June and November 1968, while in Germany, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment on three occasions for absenting himself from his unit (all three occasions, only the first occasion for a period longer than 24 hours).

6.  The applicant arrived in Vietnam on or about 26 January 1969.  He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 5th Artillery, 1st Infantry Division and performed duties  as a cannoneer, light truck driver, and radio and teletype operator.  He was awarded the Air Medal for meritorious achievement for action from 15 February to 9 August 1969 and the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service from January 1969 to January 1970.  He departed Vietnam on 10 January 1970. 

7.  The applicant’s chapter 10 packet is not available.  His Enlisted Qualification Record, DA Form 20, shows that he was absent without leave (AWOL) from     25 - 29 March 1970; AWOL from 18 April – 12 July 1970; in confinement from   15 – 16 July 1970 and from 17 July – 7 September 1970; and AWOL from            6 – 14 April 1970.  His DA Form 20 also shows that his conduct and efficiency while in Vietnam had been rated as either “excellent” or “unknown.”

8.  On 20 October 1970, the applicant was discharged with a discharge under other than honorable conditions, in pay grade E-1, after completing 2 years,      10 months, and 4 days of creditable active service and had 155 days of lost time.

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.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
10.  On 27 March 1972, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.

11.  The Department of the Army Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) was based on a memorandum from Secretary of Defense Brown and is often referred to as the “Carter Program.”  It mandated the upgrade of individual cases in which the applicant met one of several specified criteria and when the separation was not based on a specified compelling reason to the contrary.  The ADRB had no discretion in such cases other than to decide whether recharacterization to fully honorable as opposed to a general discharge was warranted in a particular case.  An individual who had received a punitive discharge was not eligible for consideration under the SDRP.  Absentees who returned to military control under the program were eligible for consideration after they were processed for separation.  Eligibility for the program was restricted to individuals discharged with either an undesirable, discharge UOTHC or a general discharge between 9 August 1964 and 28 March 1973, inclusive.  Individuals could have their discharges upgraded if they met any one of the following criteria: wounded in action; received a military decoration other than a service medal; successfully completed an assignment in Southeast Asia; completed alternate service;  received an honorable discharge from a previous tour of military service; or completed alternate service or excused therefrom in accordance with Presidential Proclamation 4313 of 16 September 1974.  Compelling reasons to the contrary to deny discharge upgrade were desertion/AWOL in or from the combat area; discharge based on a violent act of misconduct; discharge based on cowardice or misbehavior before the enemy; or discharge based on an act or misconduct that would be subject to criminal prosecution under civil law.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  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.

2.  The Board notes that the ADRB did consider the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge in 1972 and denied it.  However, he would have been eligible to apply for reconsideration under the SDRP in 1977.  Had he applied, the Board concludes that his discharge would have been upgraded to general.  He served a full tour in Vietnam and had been awarded two personal decorations.  He was discharged as a result of AWOL, but the AWOL occurred after he left Vietnam.  He had previously received three Article 15s but they were for relatively minor offenses.  

3.  The Board concludes that the applicant’s excellent record of service while in Vietnam should have been considered as a mitigating factor in determining the characterization of his discharge and that it would be appropriate to upgrade his discharge to general.

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 showing that the applicant was separated from the service with an General Discharge Certificate on 20 October 1970.

2.  That the Department issue to the applicant a General Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 20 October 1970, in lieu of the discharge under other than honorable conditions of the same date now held by him.

3.  That the applicant be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting the above corrections.

BOARD VOTE:  

__jh____  __lw____  __kah___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			June Hajjar
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000043377	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010125	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19701020	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Ch 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.0009	
2.	144.0025	
3.	144.0029	
4.		
5.		
6.