PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           24 February 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030246

	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.  
				
	Ms. McKim-Spilker		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. James P. Huber		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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.  He states, in effect, that he served 19 months in Vietnam and received several Bronze Star Medals; that his two best friends were killed; that he could not adjust to duty after Vietnam because of flashbacks and the sound of gunfire; that he did speak to the psychiatrist before he went AWOL but no assistance was offered; that he was emotionally torn over the health of his mother and his responsibility to his siblings; and, that while he was AWOL he was at home working to pay off his mother’s hospital bills and take care of his siblings.  He has submitted several letters of reference testifying to his good citizenship since discharge from service.  He has also submitted a statement from the sheriff’s department showing that he has a clear police record. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted on 13 July 1966 in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 3 years unassigned.  The record also shows that at the time of his enlistment he was 17 years old.  He left school after the 7th grade when his father could no longer work due to a heart condition and became the primary breadwinner for the family.  His father died of a heart attack in 1965 and the applicant enlisted in the Army to better support his mother and two siblings. 

5.  He was initially assigned to Fort Gordon, Georgia for basic combat training and completed advanced individual training (AIT) in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11E (Cannon Crewmember) at Fort Knox, Kentucky.  

6.  On 1 January 1967 he was assigned to A Troop, 4th Cavalry, lst Infantry Division in Vietnam as a cannon loader and scout driver.  He remained in Vietnam until 15 July 1968 receiving three Bronze Star Medals (i.e., two with V Device for heroism in ground combat; and one for meritorious achievement).  The two BSM’s for heroism were received for heroism against the enemy in separate campaigns, one the TET Counter Offensive.  He was promoted to sergeant/E-5 and his conduct and efficiency ratings were noted to be “excellent”.

7.  The applicant was reassigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma on 22 August 1968.  

8.  On 21 January 1969 he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment imposed was forfeiture of $30 and 14 days extra duty

9.  The applicant then had two periods of AWOL:  14 February to 5 March 1969 and 17 March to 7 April 1969.

10.  On 1 May 1969 the unit commander referred the applicant for a mental examination.  The examiner noted that the applicant was experiencing difficulty adjusting since his return from Vietnam and that he also felt responsible for his mother’s health as she had deteriorated during his assignment in Vietnam.  The examiner diagnosed adult situation reaction and indicated that the veteran was not alcohol or drug dependent.  He further noted that the applicant maintained that he experienced memory loss and remarked that he was unaware of how he arrived home during his period of AWOL.

11.  On 9 May 1969 he was convicted by a special court-martial for violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, the two periods of AWOL noted above.  He was sentenced to reduction to specialist/E-4 and forfeiture of $50 per month for 4 months. 

12.  The applicant had 3 other periods of AWOL:  24 May to 18 July 1969; 22 July to 10 August 1969; and, 11 August 1969 to 24 February 1970.  He was returned to duty at the Special Processing Company, U.S. Army Training Center, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. 

13.  On 27 February 1970 the applicant was recommended for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-212 by reason of unfitness based upon his record of AWOL.

14.  On 26 March 1970 the applicant was psychiatrically examined for discharge. The examiner diagnosed a severe passive-aggressive personality disorder and noted that although he had a severe character and behavior disorder; he had no violent tendencies and was not amenable to further rehabilitative efforts.     

15.  On 10 April 1970 the applicant submitted a statement on his own behalf addressing his periods of misconduct.  He indicated that during his tour of duty in Vietnam his mother began having troubles with her nerves and when the applicant returned to Fort Sill he was unable to obtain leave when she was hospitalized.  He indicated that he went AWOL in order to work at home and earn more money to pay off his mother’s mounting hospital bills and help send his siblings through school.  He turned himself in to military authorities after paying some of the bills off although his mother required doctor and/or hospital visits at least twice weekly.  

16.  On 11 April 1970 the separating authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of AR 635-212 by reason of unfitness and issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, DD Form 258A.  Accordingly, he was discharged for unfitness on 27 May 1970.   He was credited with 2 years, 11 months, and 25 days active military service, and 325 days lost time.

17.  Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separations for unfitness.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s discharge proceedings appear to have been conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time of his separation.

2.  As early as May 1969 he was diagnosed with an adult adjustment disorder and his chain of command were aware of his personal problems and his difficulties adjusting to Fort Sill after his combat duty.  A subsequent diagnosis showed a severe character and behavior disorder manifested by a passive-aggressive personality. 

3.  The Board does not condone the applicant’s acts of misconduct and is cognizant that the applicant should have pursued other avenues for relief for his family problems and his mental stress, however, it should be noted that his offenses transpired after 19 months of exemplary combat service.   Furthermore, the Board noted that the applicant was the major means of financial and emotional support for his mother and siblings since the age of 13; that he did not complete school precisely because of the needs of his family; and that his family problems also partially mitigated his incidents of misconduct. 

4.  Considering the facts and circumstances of this case to include the applicant’s heroic war-time service, his recorded mental condition and his responsibilities to his family, and taking cognizance of the time which has elapsed since his discharge from service, the Board determined that the applicant’s characterization of service is inequitable.  It appears that the interest of justice would best be served by changing the applicant’s characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. 

5.  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 to show that the individual concerned was separated from the service with a General Discharge Certificate on 27 May 1970.  

2.  That the Department of the Army issue to the individual concerned a General Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 27 May 1970, in lieu of the discharge certificate of the same date now held by him.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

___cla___  __jph___  __mvt___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030246	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000224	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700527	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212  	
DISCHARGE REASON	4000	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 9208		
 2. 9310		
 3. 9324		
 4.		
 5.		
 6.