IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 December 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160005880 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ____x___ ____x___ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 December 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160005880 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 AR20040003123, dated 10 March 2005. ______________x___________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 December 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160005880 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request to upgrade his undesirable discharge to general under honorable conditions. 2. The applicant states: a. He deserves a discharge upgrade because he served his country and put his life and liberty on the line in Vietnam. He now suffers from the effects of exposure to Agent Orange. His heart valve was replaced due to low blood flow which is caused by Agent Orange. b. He contends his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he was in a casual status en route to Fort Lee, VA, on 5 November 1970, but he was in Vietnam until 3 December 1970. These dates are incorrect and he was charged with being absent without leave (AWOL) for too many days. He admits to being AWOL due to his drug addiction to heroin which started in Vietnam. c. Upon leaving Vietnam he was granted a 30-day leave after serving 1 year in Vietnam. He questions how he could be AWOL on 18 December 1970 if he returned to the United States on 3 December 1970. He was not due to report to Fort Lee, VA, until 4 January 1971. 3. The applicant provides: * page 2 of a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) * page 3 of his DA Form 20 * page 2 of his Standard Form 89 (Report of Medical History) 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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20040003123 on 10 March 2005. 2. The applicant's contentions are new evidence that were not previously considered by the Board and warrant consideration at this time. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 July 1968 for a period of 3 years. 4. On 3 February 1969, he was convicted by a general court-martial of robbery and being AWOL from 8 November 1968 to 11 December 1968. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 9 months and forfeiture of $70.00 pay per month for 9 months. On 28 February 1969, the convening authority approved the sentence. 5. On 8 September 1969, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for failing to be at his appointed place of duty. 6. His DA Form 20 shows in: * item 31 (Foreign Service) – * he departed the continental United States en route to Vietnam on 4 December 1969 * his eligibility date to return to the continental United States was 3 December 1970 (pencil entry) * item 38 (Record of Assignments) – he was in a casual duty status en route to the United States on 5 November 1970 7. There is no evidence showing he was in Vietnam on 3 December 1970. 8. On 7 June 1971, he was hospitalized for withdrawal from heroin. He was withdrawn from heroin without incident and discharged to duty on 15 June 1971. He was diagnosed with chronic heroin addiction. 9. On 26 July 1971, charges were preferred against him for being AWOL from 18 December 1970 to 16 February 1971 and from 4 May 1971 to 7 June 1971. 10. On 30 August 1971 after consulting with counsel, he submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. He indicated he understood he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, he might be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (currently known as the Department of Veterans Affairs), and he might be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. He also acknowledged he understood he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an undesirable discharge. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 11. He provided page 2 of his Standard Form 89, dated 1 September 1971, showing he was a patient for detoxification of heroin. 12. On 21 September 1971, he underwent a mental status evaluation and was found mentally responsible. 13. On 23 September 1971, the separation authority approved his voluntary request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 14. On 29 September 1971, he was discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He completed a total of 2 years, 5 months, and 13 days of creditable active service with 285 days of lost time. His service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions. 15. On 9 August 1979, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for a discharge upgrade. 16. On 10 March 2005, the ABCMR denied his request for a discharge upgrade. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), in effect at the time, prescribed instructions for preparing and maintaining the DA Form 20. The instructions for item 31 (through block) stated: * enter the date eligible to return in pencil * change as required based on dependents accompanying or joining the individual overseas, authorized curtailment, extension, or time lost * erase the pencil entry and enter the actual date of arrival at a port in the continental United States or area of residence upon return from the overseas service tour 2. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 of the version in effect at the time provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred. Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service. Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, the type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of Veterans Administration benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge. An Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. b. 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. DISCUSSION: 1. Although the applicant contends he was in Vietnam on 3 December 1970, the pencil entry in item 31 of his DA Form 20 represents the date he was eligible to return to the United States. Item 38 of his DA Form 20 shows he departed Vietnam en route to the United States on or about 5 November 1970. 2. His voluntary request for separation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. He had an opportunity to submit a statement wherein he could have voiced his concerns; however, he elected not to do so. 3. His record of service included one nonjudicial punishment, one general court-martial conviction for robbery and being AWOL, and 285 days of lost time. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160005880 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160005880 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2