PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           12 December 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002075699

	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. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Roger W. Able		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		Member	
	Mr. Bernard P. Ingold		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 that his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to fully honorable; that his Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, be corrected to add all his awards and decorations and schools; and that his service dates be corrected.

3.  The applicant states that he waited over 20 years to resolve his problem because he found it difficult to accept his experience in the Army after his discharge.  While he was assigned to Detachment A - 233, Company B, 5th Special Forces Group, he was wounded and sent to Da Nang for treatment.  He was awarded the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star Medal with V device which he never received.  He was reassigned to the 159th Assault Helicopter Battalion where he was wounded again.  He was sent to Fort Hood, TX after he was released from the hospital.  He arrived at Fort Hood without records and was in a holding platoon of newly-arrived Vietnam veterans.  He got into a confrontation with the mustering noncommissioned officer, who said, "I hate all you Vietnam son-of-a-bitches" and received an Article 15 and was reduced to pay grade E-3.  

4.  The applicant further states that he was then assigned as a tank driver even though he had never seen a tank.  His records show he attended the Tank Commanders Course but that is a false entry.  He applied for an instructor position at Fort Lee, VA.  He had his advancement to E-5 in his records, but since he was reduced to E-3 he knew he did not have a chance for instructor duty.  In frustration he went absent without leave (AWOL) for eight days.  He went AWOL again and turned himself in at Fort Bragg, NC.  He believes his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and malaria were clouding his actions.  At Fort Bragg he was assigned to a holding barracks.  He drew no money.  His First Sergeant told him that they could not locate his records and as far as the First Sergeant was concerned he was not in the Army and could leave.  So he went home, but about a year later he was told he was still in the Army.  After a few weeks, they still could not locate his records and he was discharged with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  No disciplinary action was taken.  He was an excellent soldier before he went to Fort Hood.  The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has awarded him a 30 percent disability rating for PTSD and 10 percent for wounds.  

5.  Counsel for the applicant states that the applicant's records show his service was impeccable until his return from Vietnam to Fort Hood.  He believes the authorities should have taken into account his PTSD, although the fact they did not is understandable as PTSD was not understood until 1980.  

6.  Supporting evidence is listed as enclosures (i.e., enclosure 1, enclosure 2, etc) in the applicant's statement with his application.  He also provides a handwritten note from "Dorothy" in which it is noted he needs to request a correction to his DD Form 214 as, "the entry date is incorrect & all his medals are not included - the foreign svc not shown, military schooling, etc., etc."
7.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 December 1967.  On 6 February 1968, while in basic combat training, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being AWOL from 2 to on or about 5 February 1968.

8.  The applicant completed basic combat training and the 8-week advanced individual training Petroleum Storage Specialist course in 1968 and was awarded military occupational specialty 76W.

9.  The applicant's Enlisted Qualification Record, DA Form 20, item 31 shows he departed for Vietnam on 6 June 1968.  Item 38 shows he was assigned to Company A, 4th Aviation Battalion, 4th Infantry Division, Vietnam on 17 June 1968.  

10.  General Orders 5196, Headquarters, 4th Infantry Division dated                  24 September 1968 awarded the applicant the Purple Heart for wounds received on 23 August 1968.  An entry in item 40 (Wounds) of his DA Form 20 confirms this wound.

11.  The applicant's DA Form 20 shows that he was transferred to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 160th Aviation Group, 101st Airborne Division on    21 November 1968.  He was transferred to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 159th Aviation Battalion, 101st Airborne Division on 11 December 1968.  He was promoted to Specialist Four, E-4 effective 24 December 1968.

12.  General Orders 2588, Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division dated 2 March 1969 awarded the applicant the Bronze Star Medal.  General Orders 3204, Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division dated 11 April 1969 awarded the applicant the Army Commendation Medal.  

13.  On 20 August 1969, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for disobeying a lawful order not to drive a particular vehicle to the mess hall.  

14.  The applicant's DA Form 20 shows he was transferred to the 106th General Hospital, Japan on 5 November 1969 as a patient after being credited with six campaigns.  There is no substantiating entry in item 40 to show he was hospitalized as a result of wounds at that time.  He was assigned to Fort Hood, TX on 15 January 1970.

15.  There is no evidence of record which shows that the applicant was awarded the Purple Heart with 1st oak leaf cluster or the Bronze Star Medal with V device. There is no evidence to show he was wounded as a result of hostile action.  There is no evidence to show he was recommended for award of the Bronze Star Medal with V device.

16.  A review of the historical files of Company A, 4th Aviation Battalion, 4th Infantry Division and Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 160th Aviation Group, 101st Airborne Division were reviewed at the National Archives in College Park, MD but failed to show his eligibility for award of the Bronze Star Medal or the Purple Heart 1st oak leaf cluster.

17.   By Headquarters III Corps and Fort Hood letter dated 31 March 1970, Subject:  Student Disposition Letter for TCC Course, class 3-70, indicated the applicant was an academic dismissal from the Tank Commanders Course (TCC).
Item 27 (Military Education) of his DA Form 20 shows he completed the Tank Commanders Course.

18.  On 28 April 1970, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for being AWOL from 10 to on or about 27 April 1970.  On 14 July 1970, he accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for being AWOL from 15 to on or about  19 June 1970 and from 19 June to on or about 8 July 1970.  On 28 July 1970, he accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for breaking restriction.

19.  On 12 November 1970, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 17 August to on or about 17 October 1970.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for one month (suspended), to forfeit $100.00 pay, and to be reduced to pay grade E-1.

20.  On 18 November 1970, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for being AWOL from 13 to on or about 16 November 1970.

21.  On 17 January 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with being AWOL from 18 January 1971 to on or about  17 January 1972.

22.  A handwritten letter dated 17 January 1972 from a civilian physician indicates the applicant had been treated within the past year for a relapse of malaria and for a case of nerves.  

23.  On 18 January 1972, after consulting with legal 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.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He submitted no statement in his own behalf.

24.  On 27 January 1972, the applicant completed a mental status evaluation.  He was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and able to adhere to the right, and to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.

25.  On 18 February 1972, the applicant's battalion-level commander recommended approval of the applicant's request.  He indicated in his endorsement that the applicant had stated his reason for going AWOL from Fort Hood was that he was a petroleum and lubrications specialist and he did not like tanks which he was forced to work on as a mechanic.  Also, the applicant wanted to be in North Carolina rather than Texas.  He stated his second period of AWOL was due to being unable to support his wife and mother on the reduced pay which resulted from a court-martial.  The commander recommended the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate based solely on his apparent honorable service in Vietnam and the awards which were made to him there.

26.  The discharge approval action is not available.

27.  On 3 March 1972, the applicant was discharged, on temporary records, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a general discharge under honorable conditions.  Items 5a and 5b of his DD Form 214 erroneously show his rank as Private, E-2 (his DA Form 20 does not show that he was advanced to E-2 after his 12 November 1970 court-martial; however, his various documents in his discharge packet show his rank as either Private, E-2 or Private, E-1).  Item 17c erroneously shows his date of entry as 13 December 1970.  Item 22 erroneously does not include all his lost time in the computation of his service nor does it show his service in Vietnam.  Item 24 shows his only award as the National Defense Service Medal.  Item 25 does not show he completed the Petroleum Storage Specialist Course.  Item 26a contains only his last period of lost time.

28.  There is no evidence of record to show the applicant was promoted to or recommended for promotion to E-5.

29.  Effective 13 December 2000, the VA awarded the applicant a 30 percent disability rating for PTSD and a 10 percent disability rating for a shrapnel wound to the right elbow.  

30.  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.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.  

31.  Army Regulation 635-200 states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Where there have been infractions of discipline, the extent thereof should be considered, as well as the seriousness of the offense(s).  A soldier will not necessarily be denied an honorable discharge solely by reason of a specific number of convictions by court-martial or actions under the UCMJ Article 15.  An honorable discharge may be furnished when disqualifying entries in the soldier’s military record are outweighed by subsequent honest and faithful service over a greater period of time during the current term of service.  It is the pattern of behavior and not the isolated instance which should be considered the governing factor in determination of character of service to be awarded.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

32.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides for the wear of one silver service star in lieu of five bronze service stars on the appropriate service medal.

33.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3, Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register shows that the 4th Aviation Battalion, 9th Infantry was awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation for the period October 1966 - July 1969 and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal, First Class Unit Citation for the period 1 October 1966- 31 October 1969.  It shows Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 160th Aviation Group was awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation for the period 19 July 1968 - 14 May 1969.  It shows the 159th Aviation Battalion was awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation for the period 19 July 1968 - 14 May 1969.  The pamphlet states that not more than one Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation will be worn by any individual.  Although multiple awards of this unit citation badge are not authorized, official military personnel and historical records will indicate all awards received.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.  

2.  The applicant did not receive disciplinary action for his last, year-long period of AWOL because he requested administrative separation in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement in his own behalf with that request but he elected not to do so.  His battalion-level commander, however, indicated that the applicant had stated his reason for going AWOL from Fort Hood was that he was a petroleum and lubrications specialist and he did not like tanks which he was forced to work on as a mechanic, that he wanted to be in North Carolina rather than Texas, and that his second period of AWOL was due to being unable to support his wife and mother on the reduced pay which resulted from a court-martial.  

3.  There is no contemporary evidence to show that the applicant had the anti-Vietnam veteran incident to which he refers or that his First Sergeant at Fort Bragg told him that he could "leave."  Even if he had been told he could "leave," as a soldier with some claim to being a noncommissioned officer he should have known better than to act on that statement.

4.  The characterization of the applicant's discharge as general under honorable conditions appears to be appropriate.  His service prior to arriving at Fort Hood, TX was not as impeccable as he and his counsel contend.  In addition to the minor incident in Vietnam for which he received an Article 15, he also received an Article 15 for 3 days of AWOL while still in basic training.  That first instance of misconduct, for the same offense for which he was later court-martialed and still later administratively discharged, cannot be claimed to have been the result of PTSD or malaria.

5.  An honorable discharge may be furnished when disqualifying entries in the soldier’s military record are outweighed by subsequent honest and faithful service over a greater period of time during the current term of service.  The applicant did not serve honestly and faithfully subsequent to his misconduct and so it is determined an upgrade of his discharge to fully honorable is not warranted.

6.  The evidence of record shows the applicant did not complete the Tank Commanders Course.  The entry on his DA From 20, item 27 should be deleted.

7.  The applicant was separated on temporary records and there are numerous errors on his DD Form 214.  Item 24 of his DD Form 214 should show he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal with one silver service star and one bronze service star, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with device 1960, the Purple Heart, the Army Commendation Medal, the Bronze Star Medal, three awards of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation (although he may wear only one award), and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal, First Class Unit Citation.

8.  A review of unit historical files failed to reveal that the applicant was awarded the Purple Heart 1st oak leaf cluster or Bronze Star Medal with V device orders.

9.  Item 25 of the applicant's DD Form 214 should be amended to add the          8-week Petroleum Storage Specialist course he completed in 1968.

10.  Normally, the Board is prohibited from making a correction to a record that would make a record worse.  However, the applicant provides a note indicating that he wants his entire DD Form 214 corrected (i.e., "…request a correction to his DD 214 - the entry date…etc, etc.").  Items 5a and 5b of his DD Form 214 will not be changed as there is conflicting evidence in his discharge packet as to what grade he held at the time he separated.  However, item 17c should be amended to show his date of entry as 15 December 1967.  Item 26a should be amended to show he had lost time from 2 - 4 February 1968; 10 - 26 April 1970; 15 June 1970 - 5 July 1970; 17 August - 16 October 1970; 11 - 15 November 1970; 2 December 1970 - 5 January 1971; and 18 January 1971 - 17 January 1972 for a total of 471 days lost time.  Item 22a(1) should be amended to show he completed 2 years, 11 months, and 3 days of service for that period; item 22a(2) to show he completed no other service; item 22a(3) to show he completed 2 years, 11 months, and 3 days of total service; item 22b to show he completed 2 years, 11 months, and 3 days of total active service; and item 22c to show he completed 1 year, 4 months, and 29 days in Vietnam.

11.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That the applicant's DA Form 20, item 27 be amended to delete the Tank Commanders Course.

2.  That the applicant's DD Form 214:

     a.  item 24 be amended to show he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal with one silver service star and one bronze service star, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with device 1960, the Purple Heart, the Army Commendation Medal, the Bronze Star Medal, three awards of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal, First Class Unit Citation;

     b.  item 25 to show he completed the 8-week Petroleum Storage Specialist course in 1968;

     c.  item 26a to show he had non-pay periods lost time from 2 - 4 February 1968; 10 - 26 April 1970; 15 June 1970 - 5 July 1970; 17 August - 16 October 1970; 11 - 15 November 1970; 2 December 1970 - 5 January 1971; and            18 January 1971 - 17 January 1972 for a total of 471 days lost time;

     d.  item 17c to show he entered active duty on 15 December 1967;

     e.  item 22a(1) to show he completed 2 years, 11 months, and 3 days of net service that period; item 22a(2) to show he completed no other service; item 22a(3) to show he completed 2 years, 11 months, and 3 days of total service; item 22b to show he completed 2 years, 11 months, and 3 days of total active service; and item 22c to show he completed 1 year, 4 months, and 29 days in Vietnam.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__RWA__  __KYF___  __BPI__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___Roger W. Able__
		    CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075699	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/12/12	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1972/03/03	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 10 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	PARTIAL GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.	110.04	
3.	100.00	
4.		
5.		
6.