PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:          17 December 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002072808

	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. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		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 reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by upgrading his undesirable discharge to honorable; which the Board denied on 18 January 1984.

3.  The applicant states that his previous request was improperly submitted because he did not have assistance in submitting his application to the Board.  He states that the presumption of regularity that might normally permit the Board to assume that the service acted correctly in characterizing his service as less than honorable does not apply because of the evidence he is submitting.  He states that his discharge should be upgraded because he believes that clemency is warranted and that it is an injustice for him to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of a bad discharge.  He states, in effect, that he has been a good citizen since discharge; that he was a good soldier; that he fought for and served his country; that his characterization of service is too harsh; and that his chain of command abused their authority by imposing such a harsh discharge upon him.  The applicant also states that his ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity; his educational background; his personal problems; racial discrimination; and his inability to make rational decisions.  He also states, in effect, that he fired his weapon because he thought he heard someone in the bushes walking; that his sergeant was all over him; that he already had a bad history with this particular sergeant; and that the sergeant reported him to the chain of command.  He states that he was cited for wrongful discharge of a weapon; that his counsel was a good friend of this particular sergeant; and that all he wanted was to do his job.  He states that war does strange things to people and he is now homeless, depressed, anxious, and demoralized because of the discharge that disrupted his whole life.  He states that he is fortunate to have children that still want to reach out to him and help him.  He states that he is tired of avoiding them and he is tired of the shame put on his shoulders.  Finally, he states he can now say his peace and ask that the Board give him his life back.

4.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records, which were summarized in the decisional document, prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AC83-09794) on 18 January 1984. The applicant’s submissions are new evidence and arguments that require Board consideration.

5.  The applicant submits a statement in his own behalf in which he incorporated 13 issues, 7 of which are new.  He also submits a letter on his behalf from a clinical social worker at the Biloxi Veteran Center, Biloxi, Mississippi.  The social worker states, in effect, that the applicant is a client at their Biloxi Veteran Center being treated for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) that is directly linked to his service in Vietnam.  The social worker states that the applicant suffers from intrusive thoughts, nightmares, flashbacks, anger, guilt, depression, startle response, social isolation, distrust of others, anxiety reactions and emotional numbing.  The social worker states that the applicant is currently homeless, has been living outdoors for the last year, and is estranged from his family.  However, he does keep in touch with his children by telephone.  He has mumbled speech and concentration problems, which the social worker believes may have existed prior to service.

6.   The applicant’s military records show that he was inducted in the Army of the United States under "Project 100,000" on 17 April 1968 for a period of 2 years.  At the time of induction, he was 19 years old, had completed 11 years of formal education, had achieved a General Test score of 73, and had achieved an Armed Forces Qualification Test score of 12 (i.e. mental category IV).  Following completion of all military training at Fort Polk, Louisiana, the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B, Light Weapons Infantryman.  
7.  On 31 October 1968, he was assigned to the Republic of Vietnam.  On 13 January 1969, he was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).  He served without any incident until 3 March 1969, when he accepted battalion level nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for disobeying a lawful order (DOLO) by refusing to go on ambush patrol with his squad.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $73.00 pay per month for 2 months and a reduction to private/E-1.  The platoon leader indicated the applicant had reported to him that his fellow squad members were too loud and careless in ambush techniques; however, after an investigation, there was no evidence to substantiate the applicant's claim.  

8.  On 5 April 1969, the applicant was found guilty by a special court-martial of DOLO of a superior commissioned officer to go join his unit in the field.  He was sentenced to forfeiture of $73.00 pay per month for 3 months and confinement at hard labor for 6 months (suspended).  A week later, 12 April 1969, the applicant was still refusing to join his unit in the field and was placed in pretrial confinement at the United States Army Vietnam Installation Stockade, Long Binh, Republic of Vietnam.

9.  On 13 April 1969, court-martial charges were prepared with the intent of recommending a general court-martial.  On 14 April 1969, the applicant was informed of the charges against him.

10.  On an unknown date, an Article 32 investigation was initiated.  On 1 May 1969, the investigating officer stated that the applicant was a marginal soldier, that a court-martial would have no constructive effect, and recommended that the applicant be discharged under Army Regulation (AR) 635-212.  He noted that the division psychiatrist had also recommended that the applicant be discharged under AR 635-212. 

11.  On 19 May 1969, the applicant was advised by counsel of the contemplated discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200 for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Having been advised by counsel, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200, indicating that he understood all of the implications that go along with this type of discharge.

12.  The appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 with an undesirable discharge (UD).  Accordingly, on 7 June 1969, the applicant was discharged with a UD.  He was credited with 1 year, 1 month, and 21 days of active military service.

13.  On 5 August 1974 and 6 November 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request to have his discharge upgraded.

14.  On 18 January 1984, this Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.  On 31 January 2002, the applicant's request for reconsideration was denied.  

15.  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 an undesirable discharge.

16.  Project 100,000 was a program initiated by the Department of Defense in 1966 to annually induct and train to a standard of competence 100,000 soldiers who normally would not qualify for military service.  Participants in the program took part in training on an equal basis with other troops, receiving extra instruction where necessary.  The Army thus hoped to expand its pool of qualified manpower while easing a major social problem.  The individual services, striving to form their most effective units, would often assign the highest aptitude entrants (categories I and II, and higher range III) to further specialized training and eventually to the skilled, technical, and administrative units.  Categories III and IV, for both whites and blacks, were more often assigned to the combat units where most of the casualties took place.  Lower end category IV's (scoring below 20) were usually rejected for service.  But many in the Johnson Administration, including Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, had decided in 1966 that opportunities for many of these men were being denied, that the lower category IV's would somehow benefit from the traditional and remedial training in the service and then be able to compete successfully when they returned to civilian life.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board noted the applicant's contentions that his chain of command was racially discriminatory and that it abused its authority by discharging him with a UD; however, the applicant provided no corroborating evidence to support them. The evidence of record shows the applicant requested discharge and that he was advised of the characterization of service he would receive.  

2.  The Board noted that, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army and acknowledged that he understood the effects of an undesirable discharge.  The Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  The Board noted that the applicant was inducted into the military under the "Project 100,000" Program, that he had an AFQT score of 12, and that he was placed in mental category IV.  The Board also noted that a score of less than 20 on the AFQT under normal criteria would have disqualified him for induction and he would have been rejected for induction.  It is believed that the applicant's mental capacity contributed to his inability to follow instructions and possibly made him unsuitable for military service.

4.  The Board noted that the supporters of "Project 100,000" believed that the lower category IV's would somehow benefit from the traditional and remedial training in the service and then be able to compete successfully.  However, in this applicant's case, he was not provided any technical training to enable him to compete or reach a standard of competence.  He was assigned to a combat unit where most of the casualties occurred.  He did not benefit from any technical training to increase his ability to compete or reach a standard of competence.  He is now homeless and suffers from PTSD that has been directly linked to his Vietnam service as determined by the VA.

5.  The Board noted that after a psychological evaluation the psychiatrist recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of 635-212. However, the evaluation is no longer available.  

6.  While the Board does not condone the applicant's misconduct, it is believed that the circumstances of his Vietnam experiences, his lack of maturity, and his mental capacity were the driving forces for his misconduct.  The Board concluded that the applicant’s misconduct was inconsistent with Army standards for acceptable personal conduct and that his overall quality of service does not warrant a fully honorable discharge; however, the Board determined that the interest of justice would best be served by changing the applicant's discharge to a general discharge.  

7.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, correcting the applicant’s records as recommended below would rectify an injustice.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by voiding the Undesirable Discharge, dated 7 June 1969, now held by the individual concerned and issuing to him a General Discharge, dated 7 June 1969; under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service.

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

BOARD VOTE:

__lls___  __bje___  __wdp___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			Luther L. Santiful
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002072808	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20021217	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19690607	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chap 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	Grant	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES          1.	144.9405	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.