PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           10 January 2002    
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001062567

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 general discharge be upgraded to honorable and that his narrative reason for separation be changed to “Secretarial Authority”.  He also requests that his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show completion of the Pathfinder School and the International Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol School and that he be awarded the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he has shown sufficient evidence to prove that he was a good soldier and was only doing what a noncommissioned officer told him to do.  He indicates that he requested a narrative reason change for employment purposes when he made a personal appearance before the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) in April 2001; however, they forgot to change it when his new DD Form 214 was issued.  He states that the Pathfinder School is the only school he attended that was not put on his DD Form 214.  In support of his application, he submits an undated letter of explanation; a Certificate of Training for the Air Assault School, dated 18 September 1991; a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 19 September 1991; an undated letter of explanation, provided subsequent to his application, wherein he requests that his DD Form 214 be corrected to show that he completed the International Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol School and that he was qualified for the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar; DA Form 638-1 (Recommendation for Award of Army Achievement Medal, Army Commendation Medal and Meritorious Service Medal), dated 18 July 1991; DA Form 3595 (Record Fire Scorecard), dated 31 October 1991; and DA Form 2962 (Security Termination Statement), dated 28 May 1991.            

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted on 23 May 1990 for a period of 2 years and 17 weeks.  He successfully completed basic and airborne training and was transferred to Germany for duty as an infantryman.  He served in Southwest Asia from 2 January 1991 through 22 May 1991. 

5.  On 23 April 1992, charges were preferred against the applicant for conspiring with two soldiers to commit larceny of military property, disposing of military property and stealing military property.  Trial by general court-martial was recommended.

6.  On 17 August 1992, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He indicated in his request that he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate; that he may be deprived of many or all Army benefits; that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA; and that he may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He also acknowledged that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge.  Additionally, he elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.  However, this statement was not available for review.

7.  The intermediate commanders recommended that the applicant’s request for discharge be approved and that he be furnished an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

8.  On 18 August 1992, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions.

9.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 21 August 1992 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  He had served 2 years, 2 months and 
29 days of total active service.

10.  Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows “FOR THE GOOD OF THE SERVICE”.

11.  Item 26 (Separation Code) of the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows “JFS”.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes), in effect at the time, states the reason for discharge based on separation code “JFS” is “For the good of the service” and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  

12.  The applicant provided a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 
23 September 1991, which shows that he applied to attend Pathfinder School.  However, there is no evidence in the available records which show the applicant attended and successfully completed this school.

13.  The applicant provided a DA Form 638-1 (Recommendation for Award of Army Achievement Medal, Army Commendation Medal and Meritorious Service Medal), dated 18 July 1991, which shows that he successfully completed the International Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol Basic Patrolling and Recognition Course.  By telephone, the applicant provided information regarding the length of this course and his completion date. 

14.  The applicant provided a copy of DA Form 3595 (Record Fire Scorecard), dated 31 October 1991, which shows he qualified “Expert” with the rifle.

15.  DA Form 638-1 (Recommendation for Award of Army Achievement Medal, Army Commendation Medal and Meritorious Service Medal), dated 18 July 1991, shows the applicant was awarded the Army Achievement Medal for meritorious service during the period 21 October 1990 through 1 September 1991.  This award was published in orders on 26 July 1991.  This award is not shown on the applicant’s discharge document.

16.  101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and Fort Campbell Permanent Orders 266-007, dated 23 September 1991, show the applicant was awarded the Air Assault Badge.  This badge is not shown on his discharge document.

17.  On 24 May 1995, the ADRB denied the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade to honorable.

18.  On 23 April 2001, the ADRB upgraded the applicant’s discharge to general and denied his request to change his narrative reason for separation to “Secretarial Authority”. 
    
19.  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.

20.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

21.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes) prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons.

22.  Army Regulation 635-5 establishes the policies and procedures for completion and distribution of the DD Form 214.  In pertinent part it states that item 14 (Military Education) will list formal in service training courses
of 40 hours or more successfully completed during the period of service covered by title, length in weeks, and month and year completed.  This information is to assist the soldier after separation in job placement and counseling; therefore, training courses for combat skills are not listed.

23.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards), in pertinent part, sets forth requirements for award of basic marksmanship qualification badge.  The qualification badge is awarded to indicate the degree in which an individual has qualified in a prescribed record course, and an appropriate bar is furnished to denote each weapon with which the individual has qualified.  The qualification badges are in three classes:  Expert, Sharpshooter, and Marksman.

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, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The ADRB upgraded the applicant’s discharge to general on 23 April 2001.

4.  The Board noted that the applicant had served 2 years, 2 months and 29 days of total active service at the time of his separation.  However, the Board determined that the seriousness of the applicant’s conspiracy and larceny offenses for which general court-martial charges had been preferred against him are too serious, to warrant relief in the form of an honorable discharge.

5.  The narrative reason for separation used in the applicant’s case is correct and was applied in accordance with applicable regulation.

6.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that the narrative reason for separation issued to him was in error or unjust.

7.  The Board considered the applicant’s contention that he attended the Pathfinder School.  However, the applicant’s DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 23 September 1991, shows that he applied to attend Pathfinder School.  There is no evidence of record, and the applicant has provided no evidence, which shows he successfully completed the Pathfinder School.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to show that he completed this school.  

8.  Evidence of record shows the applicant completed the International Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol Basic Patrolling and Recognition Course.  Therefore, the applicant is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to show completion of this course.

9.  Evidence of record shows the applicant’s qualification score was expert with the rifle on 31 October 1991.  Therefore, the applicant is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to show the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.  

10.  The applicant received the Air Assault Badge and the Army Achievement Medal.  Therefore, he is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to show these awards.

11.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records, but only as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

	a.  by showing the entry, “International Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol Basic Patrolling and Recognition Course, 3 weeks,  November 1990” in item 14 (Military Education) on the DD Form 214 of the individual concerned; and

b.  by showing that the individual concerned was awarded the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar, the Air Assault Badge and the Army Achievement Medal.  

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

BOARD VOTE:  

FNE____  TSK____  JTM_____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__Fred N. Eichorn_______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001062567	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020110	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	20010423  - Army Discharge Review Board upgraded the applicant’s discharge under other than honorable conditions to general.	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 10 	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the service	
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.	100.0700	
3.	107.0108	
4.		
5.		
6.