MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           23 October 2001    
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001060542

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration 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. Shirley Powell		Chairperson	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  That serving your country in time of war must not count.  He contends that he served in Vietnam from 19 May 1967 through 17 May 1968 and that he served his country with pride.  He also contends that he deserves better, that he did not fail his country and his actions were the result of what he witnessed in Vietnam (death).     

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant entered active duty on 1 June 1964 and trained as a clerk typist.

On 15 June 1965, while in Korea, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for failure to be in his billets area during the period of bed check and missing physical fitness and work formations.

On 28 October 1965, while in Korea, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for urinating in public.

The applicant was honorably discharged on 23 June 1966 for immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 24 June 1966.  

On 29 November 1966, while in Italy, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL), absent from bed check (four specifications), uniform violation, possession of alcoholic beverages in the barracks and AWOL from work formation (two specifications).

The applicant was transferred to Vietnam on 19 May 1967 for duty as a clerk typist.

On 10 October 1967, while in Vietnam, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being apprehended by military police with an unauthorized pass in his possession.

On 26 January 1968, while in Vietnam, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. 

The applicant was transferred to the United States on 15 May 1968.

On 23 July 1968, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 17 July 1968 through 23 July 1968.

The applicant went AWOL on 5 August 1968 and returned to military control on 29 December 1974.

On 2 January 1975, after consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service pursuant to the provisions of Presidential Proclamation No. 4314, issued on 16 September 1974.  He indicated in his request that he understood he would be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate; that he would be deprived of all service benefits, that he would be ineligible for all benefits administered by the VA; and that he may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He acknowledged that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an undesirable discharge.  He also acknowledged that within 15 days of the date of receipt of the Undesirable Discharge Certificate, he must report to his State Director of Selective Service to arrange for performance of alternate service.  He further indicated that he understood that satisfactory completion of such alternate service would be acknowledged by issuance of a Clemency Discharge Certificate; however, this certificate will not alter his ineligibility for any benefits predicated upon his military service.  

ADMINCEN Form 1966-5 (Reaffirmation of Allegiance and Pledge to Complete Alternate Service), dated 2 January 1975, shows the applicant pledged to complete 7 months of alternate service.

Accordingly, on 2 January 1975, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Presidential Proclamation Number 4313.  He had served 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of total active service with 2337 days of lost time due to AWOL.

On 2 October 1975 the applicant was terminated from enrollment in Reconciliation Service Program because he did not complete his required period of alternate service (he was dismissed for unsatisfactory performance and failed to respond to official correspondence).

Presidential Proclamation 4313, issued on 16 September 1974, provided for the issuance of a clemency discharge to certain former soldiers, who voluntarily entered into and completed an alternate public work program specifically designated for former soldiers who received a less than honorable discharge for AWOL related incidents between August 1964 and March 1973.  Under this proclamation, eligible deserters were given the opportunity to request discharge for the good of the service with the understanding that they would receive an undesirable discharge.  Upon successful completion of the specified alternative service, the deserter was issued a clemency discharge.  The clemency discharge did not affect the individual’s underlying discharge, and did not entitle him to any VA benefits.  Rather, it restored federal and, in most instances, state civil rights which may have been denied due to the less than honorable discharge.  If a participant of the program failed to complete the period of alternative service the original undesirable characterization of service, would be retained.

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.

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:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant’s voluntary request for discharge for the good of the service pursuant to the provisions of Presidential Proclamation Number 4313 was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  Evidence of record shows the applicant failed to complete his required period of alternate service in accordance with the provisions of Presidential Proclamation Number 4313.  Therefore, the applicant was not issued a clemency discharge.

4.  The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service on his second enlistment and determined that his quality 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.

5.  The applicant’s contention that serving your country in time of war must not count was noted by the Board.  However, in addition to the applicant’s combat duty in Vietnam, his record of service included four nonjudicial punishments (two of which occurred during his assignment in Vietnam) and 2337 days of lost time.  Based on the foregoing, the Board determined that his record of service on his second enlistment was not satisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to a general discharge. 

6.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

7.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

SP____  ALR_____  TEO_____  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060542	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011023	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19750102	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	Presidential Proclamation Number 4313	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.