MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           15 February 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000046840

	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. Fred N. Eichorn 		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson 		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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:  That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.  He also requests that he be awarded the Purple Heart and promotion to the rank of sergeant/pay grade E-5.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he served in the Army and in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) to the best of his ability.  He was wounded twice in the line of duty and he was not awarded the Purple Heart.  He also states that he was considered for promotion to sergeant, however, he was never promoted.

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

That on 12 February 1969, he was inducted into the Army of the United States for a period of 2 years.  He completed basic training and advanced training at Fort Knox, Kentucky and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 
11E (Armor Crewman).  He was assigned to permanent duty at Fort Knox.

On 12 April 1969, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) action was imposed against him under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed.  His punishment included forfeiture of $23.00 pay and confinement to the Correctional Custody Facility, Fort Knox for 7 days.  On 12 June 1969, he was advanced from pay grade E-1 to pay grade E-2.

On 8 October 1969, he was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from his unit from 27 June-18 September 1969.  His sentence included confinement at hard labor for 4 months, forfeiture of $75.00 pay per month for 
4 months and reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1. 

On 9 December 1969, he was assigned to C Troop, 1st Squadron, 11th Armored Calvary Regiment in the RVN.  On 15 November 1970, he returned to the United States and he was again assigned to Fort Knox. 

On 20 February 1970, he was advanced from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-3.  On 31 May 1970, he was advanced from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-4.  There is nothing in his records to show that he was ever considered for promotion to the rank of sergeant/pay grade E-5.

On 13 January 1971, he departed his unit AWOL and he remained AWOL until 
10 February 1971.  He departed AWOL again on 16 February 1971.  In March 1971, while he was AWOL, his mother wrote to the President of the United States and requested that he be granted a hardship discharge.  His mother stated that she had undergone surgery for cancer and that she needed him at home to help with the farm.  There is no evidence that the applicant ever requested a hardship discharge.
On 8 July 1971, he was returned to military control at the US Army Personnel Control Facility (PCF), Fort Knox.  On 27 July 1971, he was informed that special court-martial charges were being preferred against him for the above periods of AWOL.  On 22 July 1971, the applicant underwent a medical evaluation by professionally trained personnel.  He was found to be qualified for separation.

On 29 July 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.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 30 July 1971, his unit commander recommended that his request for discharge be approved with a UD.  He was placed on excess leave.  On 5 August 1971, competent authority approved his request. 

On 12 August 1971, he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service with a UD.  His DD Form
214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows that he had completed 1 year, 7 months and 7 days of active military service.  He also had 186 days lost time due to being AWOL and in confinement; 142 days of this lost time was subsequent to the normal expiration of his term of service.

His DD Form 214 shows that he was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal, and the Vietnam Campaign Medal with 60 Device.  His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows that he is also entitled to award of the Bronze Star Medal and the National Defense Service Medal.

Neither his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record), nor his DD Form 214, item 40 (Wounds) show that he was ever wounded or that he was authorized award of the Purple Heart due to injuries that he received as a result of hostile action.

On 7 May 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.  

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained as a result of hostile action.  Sustaining evidence must be provided to verify that the wound was the result of hostile action, the wound must have required treatment, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record. 

Headquarters, Department of the Army General Orders Number 8, dated 1974, also awarded his unit the Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation.

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.  However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of a UD.

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 this 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.  His conduct was inconsistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and his overall quality of service does not warrant an upgrade of his discharge. 

4.  Further, there is no evidence in the available records and the applicant has provided no medical records that would substantiate his contention that he was wounded as a result of hostile action.  Therefore, he has established no basis for award of the Purple Heart.

5.  Additionally, there no evidence available to indicate that he was ever considered for promotion to pay grade E-5.  In fact, he started going AWOL shortly after he was advanced to pay grade E-4.

6.  However, he is entitled to have his DD Form 214 administratively corrected to show that he was award the Bronze Star Medal, the National Defense Service Medal and the Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation.

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

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, Support Division, St. Louis furnish the individual concerned a DD Form 215, (Correction to DD Form 214) to show in Item 24 that he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Bronze Star Medal and the Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__mkp___  __fe____  ___mhm_  DENY APPLICATION

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

					

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000046840	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010215	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19710812	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.