PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:             31 July 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2003088292

	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, Yvonne J. Foskey		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms Gail J. Wire 		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		Member	
	Mr. Robert L. Duecaster		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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).  

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he served honorably to protect his country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  He further states that he is a decorated Vietnam veteran who earned the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB), Air Medal (AM), and Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM), and did not deserve to receive an UD. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he initially enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 26 January 1968.  He was trained and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).  He also served in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN), from 1 July 1968 through 26 June 1969, and received “Excellent” conduct and efficiency ratings during this tour.  

5.  The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) confirms that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist/E-4.  It also shows that during his tenure on active duty, he earned the following awards: National Defense Service Medal; ARCOM; AM; CIB; Vietnam Service Medal; Vietnam Campaign Medal with 60 Device; 1st Class Gunner Badge (Machine Gun); Marksman Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar; and two Overseas Bars.

6.  The applicant’s record reveals a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 17 September 1969, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 28 August 1969 to 17 September 1969.  

7.  On 2 September 1970, the applicant was found guilty of being AWOL, from 
6 October 1969 to 29 June 1970, by a special court-martial.  The resultant sentence included a reduction in grade (E-1), 30 days of hard labor without confinement, and a forfeiture of $88.00 per month for three months.  

8.  On 17 March 1971, the unit commander initiated a suspension of favorable personnel actions (DA Form 268) on the applicant based on his being AWOL from 15 September 1970 to 17 March 1971.  

9.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge processing are not in the record.  However, there is a separation document
(DD Form 214) on file that confirms that on 14 April 1971, he received an UD under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The separation document also verifies that at the time of his discharge, he had completed 1 year, 10 months, and 24 days of creditable active military service, and he had accrued 470 days of time lost due to AWOL. 

10.  There is no indication that the applicant requested an upgrade of his discharge from the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15 year stature of limitations.  

11.  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 discharge, issuance of an UD was authorized.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he was a combat veteran who served honorably to protect his country, and it finds this claim has merit.  

2.  The applicant’s discharge was processed in accordance with the governing regulation and was proper and equitable at the time it was issued.  However, in the opinion of the Board, the applicant’s combat service in the RVN was sufficiently meritorious, as evidenced by his “Excellent” conduct and efficiency ratings and his earning the CIB, AM, and ARCOM, to warrant relief. 

3.  Although the Board finds the applicant’s combat service supports an upgrade of his discharge, it concludes that his AWOL related offenses clearly diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  Therefore, the Board concludes that it would be appropriate and serve the interest of equity to upgrade his discharge to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) based on overall record of military service.

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 the individual concerned received a general, under honorable conditions discharge on 14 April 1971, in lieu of UD of the same date he now holds; and by providing him a corrected separation document that reflects this change.

2.  That so much in excess of 

BOARD VOTE:  

 GJW_  ________  ________      GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  __RLD__  __KH__     DENY APPLICATION

		Gail J. Wire
	                                             CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED		
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.