PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            6 June 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002068909

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy, Jr.		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 general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

3.  The applicant states that he had a good military record and the general discharge he received was given to him because of the financial problems created while he was in Vietnam and the person he was sending his money to did not pay his bills. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in Los Angeles, California on 24 September 1969 for a period of 3 years and training as a medical corpsman.  He completed his training and was stationed at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, where he reenlisted on 24 July 1970, for a period of 3 years.

5.  On 22 October 1970, he was transferred to Vietnam and was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 1st Infantry, 23rd Infantry Division, for duty as an aidman.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 (SP5) on 4 August 1971 and was awarded the Combat Medical Badge, the Bronze Star Medal and the Army Commendation Medal for his service in Vietnam.  He departed Vietnam on 21 October 1971 and was transferred to Fort McArthur, California, on 29 November 1971.

6.  On 1 June 1973, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for uttering a bad check in the amount of $50.00.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 30 days) and extra duty.

7.  On 7 June 1973, NJP was imposed against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 15 May to 25 May 1973.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-4 and a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 3 months).

8.  On 5 July 1973, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was being recommended for discharge from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant elected to appear before a board of officers and to be represented by counsel.  

9.  The commander submitted the recommendation on the same day and cited as the basis for his recommendation, the applicant’s established pattern of showing dishonorable failure to pay his just debts.  He enclosed over a dozen copies of letters from creditors/financial institutions showing that the applicant was not making the payments on loans he had secured after his return from Vietnam, as well as letters indicating that the applicant had uttered bad checks. 

10.  The applicant appeared before a board of officers on 30 August 1973, represented by counsel.  He gave testimony to the Board to the effect that he was in debt because his mother was over-extended and needed his help, which resulted in his getting behind in his bills.  He indicated that his mother lived 22 miles away and he stayed at home to help his mother and because it provided him more things to do, rather than stay in the barracks with nothing to do.  He also indicated that he believed that he could get out of debt and that he did not desire to be discharged.  

11.  After hearing testimony from the applicant’s chain of command, the board found that he was unfit for retention in the service for failure to pay his just debts and recommended that he be discharged under honorable conditions (General Discharge).  The appropriate authority approved the findings and recommendations of the board on 18 September 1973.

12.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 3 October 1973, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-5a, for unfitness, based on an established pattern for showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts.  He had served 4 years and 10 days of total active service.

13.  There is no indication in the applicant’s records that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, in effect at the time, established policy and provided guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel found to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service.  An individual could be found unfit for various types of misconduct that included frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities and failure to pay just debts.  While an honorable or general discharge was authorized, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

15.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides the criteria for decorations and awards. It provides, in pertinent part, that the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal (RVNCM) is awarded for service in Vietnam for a period of 6 months or for a period of less than 6 months when an individual has been wounded by hostile forces, captured, or killed in the line of duty.  It also provides that the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) is awarded to all members of the Armed Forces assigned to Vietnam for 1 day or more.

16.  Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register-Vietnam Era) was published to assist commanders and personnel officers in determining or establishing the eligibility of individual members for campaign participation credit, assault landing credit, and unit citation badges awarded during the Vietnam Conflict.  Table 1 (Army Units in Numerical Order) of the pamphlet indicates that the applicant’s unit was awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm (RVNGC w/Palm) Unit Citation for service in Vietnam during the period he was assigned to the unit.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

2.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contention that his debts were the result of someone not paying his bills while he was in Vietnam and finds it to be without merit.  The evidence of record clearly shows that he incurred the financial obligations subsequent to his service in Vietnam and allowed the debts to become delinquent, despite all attempts by his chain of command and outside agencies to assist him in meeting his obligations.  Accordingly, there is no error or injustice in his case and the Board finds no basis to upgrade his discharge.

3.  However, the applicant was entitled to be awarded the VSM, the RVNCM and the RVNGC w/Palm Unit Citation and it would be in the interest of justice to do so at this time.

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 awarding the individual concerned the VSM, the RVNCM and the RVNGC w/Palm Unit Citation.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

___sk___  ___jm ___  __teo___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_____Stanley Kelley_______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068909	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/06/06	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1973/10/03	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 CH13	
DISCHARGE REASON	UNFIT/DEBTS	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  596	144.5500/A55.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.