PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: 29 March 2001
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001051114


         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
Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson
Mr. Lester Echols		Member
Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		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 Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, be corrected to show his social security number (SSN) as ___-__-_661; that his service in Vietnam be shown; that his advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Sill and Fort Hood be shown; and that his awards from his Vietnam service be shown. He also requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) upgraded to general under honorable conditions.

3. The applicant states that the evidence he provides shows he served in Vietnam from 22 March 1968 to 23 March 1969. He had a rough childhood and at age 17 he was given the choice of entering the Army or going to jail. He took the Army but to his dismay the Army was worse. He beat up his drill sergeant and received an Article 15. Before he went to Vietnam he received a couple of courts-martial that were unjust. He had trouble adjusting in Vietnam but got along after a while. He went home on leave in March 1969 and started drinking heavily. He was hospitalized twice while on leave for mental and physical exhaustion. After he returned from leave his troubles increased. He stayed drunk. He was tired and wanted out. He was arrested by civilian authorities for stealing a truck and sentenced to 3 years in prison. He was stoned out of his mind on whiskey and drugs at the time. After he got out he sought help from the VA but they could find no records of his being in the Army let alone in Vietnam. He feels he served his country honorably for 365 days in Vietnam and deserves an upgraded discharge for that reason. He provides his DD Form 214; a letter from his former platoon leader from Vietnam; a letter from his group commander; a letter from his former spouse; copies of extracts from his service medical records; a letter dated 28 April 2000 from the Belgrade Regional Health Center; and a 6-page document from the Okeechobee General Hospital as supporting evidence.

4. The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 March 1967. His enlistment contract and orders show only a service number, not an SSN. Other documents in his records are about evenly divided between showing his SSN as ___-__-_601 and ___-__-_661. (His discharge packet, however, shows his SSN as ___ __ _611.) He completed basic combat training and AIT and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13D (Field Artillery Rocket Crewman). His Enlisted Qualification Record, DA Form 20, is a temporary record. It does not show where he took AIT.

5. On 6 June 1967, while assigned to Battery D, 5^th Training (Missile) Battalion, U. S. Army Training Center, Field Artillery, Fort Sill, OK, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for absenting himself without authority from his unit and for disobeying a lawful order.

6. On 23 June 1967, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of going from his appointed place of duty and disobeying a lawful order. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 2 months and to forfeit $25.00 pay for 2 months. On 31 August 1967, he was convicted by a special court-martial of failing to go to his appointed place of duty and willfully disobeying a lawful order. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and to forfeit $60.00 pay for 6 months.

7. On 16 February 1968, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of having a false official pass in his possession. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months (suspended for 6 months) and to forfeit $68.00 pay for 6 months.

8. Copies of extracts of the applicant’s service medical records from the period he contends he was in Vietnam (22 March 1968 – 23 March 1969) show he was treated on 8 January 1969 for an illness at the 1^st Medical Battalion, 1^st Marine Division. He was treated for the same illness on an unknown date in February 1969, on 11 February 1969, and on 13 February 1969. Another document which shows he was treated on 13 February 1969 for this illness shows his unit as C Battery, 1^st Battalion, 44^th Artillery, APO 96269. One document shows he was treated on 8 November 1968 and the entry is stamped “Regimental dispensary…1^st Marine Division (Rein)…” A copy of an extract from service dental records purports to show he received treatment on 18 June 1968 at the 1^st Dental Company, Republic of Vietnam (his name is not shown on this document).

9. On 14 June 1969, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for conducting himself in a disorderly manner.

10. On 3 September 1969, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 25 June – 2 July 1969 and from 3 July – 10 August 1969. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 2 months, to forfeit $40 pay for 6 months, and to be reduced to pay grade E-1.

11. On 27 October 1969, the applicant was confined by civil authorities for automobile theft. On 28 November 1969, he was tried by the Superior Court of Columbus, GA, convicted, and sentenced to 1 year confinement and 2 years probation. .

12. On 17 December 1969, the applicant’s commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for misconduct, conviction by a civil court with confinement in excess of 1 year. On this date, the applicant waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived representation by counsel, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

13. On 8 January 1970, the applicant provided notice to the Army that he did not intend to appeal his conviction.

14. On 9 February 1970, the applicant’s commander formally recommended his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206. This recommendation notes the applicant had Vietnam service from 28 March 1968 through 22 March 1969.

15. On 18 February 1970, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

16. On 18 March 1970, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 for civil conviction with an undesirable, UOTHC discharge. He had completed 1 year, 7 months and 17 days of creditable active service and had 451 days of lost time.

17. Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for misconduct (fraudulent entry, conviction by civil court, and absence without leave or desertion). That regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the elimination of enlisted personnel for misconduct when they were initially convicted by civil authorities, or action taken against them which is tantamount to a finding of guilty, of an offense for which the maximum penalty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice is death or confinement in excess of 1 year.

18. Army Regulation 635-5 prescribes the separation documents prepared for soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army. It establishes standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214. At the time, it provided that installation training courses, military correspondence courses, and off-duty courses an enlisted person completed successfully during the period covered by the DD Form 214 would be entered in item 25.

19. Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides policy and criteria concerning individual military decorations. In pertinent part, it states that the VSM is awarded for 1 or more days of service in Vietnam after 3 July 1965 to 28 March 1973. The Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal is awarded to members who have served in Vietnam for 6 months during the period 1 March 1961 to 28 March 1973. Five campaigns are listed for the period March 1968 through March 1969: Tet Counteroffensive (30 January – 1 April 1968); Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase IV (2 April – 30 June 1968); Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase V (1 July – 1 November 1968); Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase VI (2 November 1968 – 22 February 1969); and Tet 69 Counteroffensive (23 February – 8 June 1969). A bronze service star is worn on the VSM to denote campaign credit. A silver service star is worn in lieu of five bronze service stars. All units that served in Vietnam were later awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. The Board accepts the combination of available evidence to conclude that the applicant did serve in Vietnam. It is possible but highly unlikely that all of the copies of service medical records extracts provided were forged. The applicant’s discharge packet noted he served in Vietnam. Although the statements he provides are unsworn, combined with the other evidence they tend to corroborate his contention. The Board accepts that he was assigned to Vietnam from 28 March 1968 – 22 March 1969 (11 months and 25 days), the dates shown in his discharge packet. Given this acceptance, the applicant is entitled to award of the Vietnam Service Medal with one silver service star, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm.

2. The Board concludes that the applicant completed AIT at Fort Sill, OK for MOS 13D. He was assigned to a training battalion at Fort Sill, OK and he was awarded the field artillery MOS. This training should have been shown on his DD Form 214. However, there is no evidence to show he completed any training courses while at Fort Hood.

3. The Board concludes that there is no definitive evidence to show that the applicant’s SSN was ___-__-_661. The SSN shown on his DD Form 214 is one of the three SSNs used on various documents in his records.

4. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The type of discharge given was and still is appropriate. The Board has accepted that the applicant served in Vietnam. However, the character of service is determined by the soldier’s overall record of service and not just a portion of it. If he felt some or all of his courts-martial were unjust, he had recourse to the appeals process at the time and there is no evidence to show that any of the courts-martial were successfully appealed. His overall record of service does not justify upgrading of his discharge.

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

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the applicant’s DD Form 214 be corrected by:

a. amending item 22c to show he served 11 months and 25 days of foreign service;

b. amending item 24 to add the Vietnam Service Medal with one silver service star, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm; and

c. amending item 25 to add the Field Artillery Rocket Crewman Course.

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

BOARD VOTE:

__jns___ __le____ __cjp___ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION



                           John N. Slone
                  ______________________
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001051114
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20010329
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19700318
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-206
DISCHARGE REASON	A61.00
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	110.00
2.	110.04
3.	100.00
4.
5.
6.