RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           20 November 2003   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003090111

	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:

	Ms. Joann Langston		Chairperson	
	Ms. Linda D. Simmons		Member	
	Mr. Robert 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).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to upgrade his undesirable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he was not given proper medical treatment when he was wounded in Vietnam so he went absent without leave (AWOL).  This is a new argument that will be considered by the ABCMR.

3.  The applicant provides a Certificate of Appreciation, dated February 1991, and five character reference letters.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AC93-07418 on 1 September 1993.

2.  A Casualty Report, dated 19 September 1968, shows the applicant was slightly wounded in Vietnam on 17 September 1968 as a result of hostile action.  He received a fragment wound to the right arm and was treated and hospitalized in Vietnam.

3.  On 20 October 1968, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for failure to repair.

4.  On 19 December 1968, the applicant was reported for being AWOL.  He was returned to military control on 20 April 1973.

5.  On 16 July 1973, after consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.

6.  The applicant underwent a separation physical examination on 4 May 1973 and was found qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111111.  

7.  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.  At the time, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. 

8.  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.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no evidence of record, and the applicant has provided no evidence, which shows that he did not receive proper medical treatment when he was wounded in Vietnam.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could have voiced his reason for AWOL and he failed to do so.  Medical evidence of record shows the applicant was found qualified for separation prior to his voluntary request for discharge. 

2.  Letters of support submitted by the applicant attest to his good post service conduct and achievements.  However, good post service alone is not a basis for upgrading a discharge.

3.  The applicant's record of service included one nonjudical punishment and 1394 days of lost time.  As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to a general discharge.

4.  The applicant's record of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant 

is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

JL______  LDS____  RD______  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AC93-07418, dated 1 September 1993.

		___Joann Langston_____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003090111	
SUFFIX		
RECON	19930901	
DATE BOARDED	20031120	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19730727	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the good of the service	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.