Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057241C070420
Original file (2001057241C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 23 October 2001
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001057241

         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
Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Shirley L. 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: That his records be corrected to show that he was separated in pay grade E-5, and that he was awarded the Purple Heart.

APPLICANT STATES: In three letters, that he served his entire year tour in Vietnam in the jungle, without as much as a single break. He volunteered for all the missions no one else would take, which resulted in his rapid promotion to sergeant. While in combat, he was injured when he was blown off an armored personnel carrier (APC) by a 500 pound anti-tank mine, but has been told by other Government agencies that he can’t get a Purple Heart if the Army didn’t issue him one at the time he was injured. He contends that he did not report the injury because they were short handed at the time, and he would have been medevaced if he had reported it. As for his rank, he states, in effect, that since he earned his promotion for his exemplary combat service in Vietnam, that rank should not have been taken from him for misconduct he committed after his return to the United States.

In support of his application he submits statements from two soldiers who served with him who state they witnessed him being thrown from an APC when the APC hit a landmine. One of the people making a statement does not say that he saw the applicant sustain any wound or injury as a result of the blast. The second person making a statement says that the applicant was dazed and disoriented following the blast, and he noticed that the applicant was in pain after the incident. The applicant also submits documents attesting to his post-service conduct and accomplishments.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 January 1969, was awarded the military occupational specialty of light weapons infantryman, and was promoted to pay grade E-5. He served in an infantry unit in Vietnam from 21 July 1969 to 20 July 1970.

On 20 October 1970 the applicant pled and was found guilty by a summary court-martial of being Absent Without Leave (AWOL) from 6 to 7 October 1970. His sentence consisted of a reduction from pay grade E-5 to pay grade E-3, hard labor without confinement for 45 days, and a forfeiture of $112.00. However, the approving authority suspended the sentence for 3 months.

On 24 February 1971 the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for recklessly driving his privately owned vehicle through a flashing red light. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $10.00.

On 23 March 1971 the applicant accepted NJP for dereliction in the performance of his duties, and for disobeying a lawful order. His punishment consisted of a reduction from pay grade E-5 to pay grade E-4 and a forfeiture of $125.00.

On 8 April 1971 the applicant accepted NJP for being AWOL from 5 to 7 April 1971. His punishment consisted of 14 days of extra duty and a $25.00 fine. On 5 May 1971 the applicant pled and was found guilty by a summary court-martial of disobeying a lawful order, and for absenting himself from his appointed place of duty, to wit, guard duty. His sentence consisted of a reduction from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-2, forfeiture of $100.00, and confinement at hard labor for 30 days. However, the approving authority suspended the confinement and reduction for 2 months.

On 22 June 1971 the applicant accepted NJP for being AWOL on 21 June 1971.  His punishment consisted of 14 days of extra duty and a fine of $25.00.

On 28 July 1971 the applicant accepted NJP for being AWOL from 28 June to 28 July 1971. His punishment consisted of a reduction from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-3, a forfeiture of $70.00, and 14 days of both extra duty and restriction.

On 16 August 1971 the applicant accepted NJP for failing to go to his appointed place of duty, and for failing to obey a company regulation. His punishment consisted of a reduction from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-2, and 14 days of both extra duty and restriction.

On 23 August 1971 the applicant accepted NJP for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $25.00.

On 25 August 1971 the applicant went AWOL. He returned to military control on 15 September 1971. In a statement made by the applicant’s unit executive officer (XO) pertaining to the applicant’s return to military control after that period of AWOL, it was stated that the XO decided that the applicant should be placed in pre-trial confinement based on the applicant’s history of only remaining under military control until he received a paycheck, at which time he would depart AWOL again. Based on that decision, the applicant was placed under custody while the XO obtained the necessary confinement orders, but during that brief period of time the applicant escaped custody by climbing through the bathroom window. The applicant remained AWOL until 14 October 1971.

On 22 October 1971 court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 25 August to 15 September 1971, for being AWOL from 15 September to 14 October 1971, and for escaping lawful custody.

The applicant then requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, for the good of the service. That request was approved and he was issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate on 24 November 1971. He had 2 years and 7 months of creditable service and 84 days of lost time. His awards and decorations consisted of the Marksman Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar, the Sharpshooter Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar, the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal with 1 bronze service star, the Vietnam Campaign Medal with 1960 device, the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Army Commendation Medal, the Vietnam Civil Actions Medal First Class and the Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm. He was not awarded any decorations for valor.

On 8 April 1976 the applicant was given a Presidential Pardon.

On 18 September 1979 the Army Discharge Review Board upgraded the applicant’s undesirable discharge to under honorable conditions (General Discharge Certificate).

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart is awarded for wounds sustained as a result of hostile action. Substantiating evidence must be provided to verify that the wound was the result of hostile action, the wound must have required treatment by a medical officer, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.

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

1. There is no evidence that the applicant sustained a wound which would warrant the award of the Purple Heart. While the applicant has submitted statements attesting that he was thrown from an APC when it ran over a land mine, neither person said that they witnessed the applicant being wounded as a result of that incident.

2. The applicant was demoted for numerous, repeated acts of misconduct. The Board notes that several of his reductions were suspended, giving him ample opportunity to retain his rank. That he did not heed those warnings was his choice.

3. The applicant has cited his combat service as grounds to negate his reductions in grade. The Board does not accept that argument. While the applicant’s combat service may have been taken into consideration in the ADRB’s decision to upgrade his undesirable discharge, combat service does not excuse misconduct.  Every soldier, regardless of type of award of decoration

received, is expected to conduct him or herself in a manner in keeping with the UCMJ. In this regard, the Board notes that the applicant was never given any decoration for valor.

4. 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

__alr ___ ____teo _ ____slp__ DENY APPLICATION



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




INDEX

CASE ID AR2001057241
SUFFIX
RECON YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED 200110123
TYPE OF DISCHARGE (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 107.00
2. 110.00
3.
4.
5.
6.


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050008457C070206

    Original file (20050008457C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant submitted a letter, dated 23 February 2005, wherein he states that he did not receive award of the Combat Infantryman Badge at the time he was discharged and believes he is entitled to the award since he served as an "APC track driver" while in Vietnam. There is no evidence in the available records which shows that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitation. The records available...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069277C070402

    Original file (2002069277C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The applicant’s record shows that he was discharged on 7 November 1973, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness with a discharge UOTHC.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081152C070215

    Original file (2002081152C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Although the record of NJP is not present in the available records, his records contain an order showing that NJP was imposed against him again on 5 January 1971 for misconduct and that he was reduced to the pay grade of E-1 on that date. However, the applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that his service is...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013039

    Original file (20090013039.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states that his discharge is unjust because it did not consider his young age at the time and his 13 months of service in the Republic of Vietnam. On 26 October 1971, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge (UOTHC), and of the procedures and rights that were...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008739

    Original file (20080008739.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 July 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080008739 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. As a result, his record of service was not satisfactory and did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel for an upgrade to a general discharge or fully honorable discharge. There is no evidence of record which indicates the actions taken in his case were in error or unjust, therefore, there is no basis for granting the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090205C070212

    Original file (2003090205C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD), confinement at hard labor for 1 year, a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of all pay and allowances. On 17 June 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) dispatched a letter to the applicant informing him that his discharge had been upgraded to a general discharge under the SDRP. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008247

    Original file (20080008247.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 16 October 1973, the applicant was discharged from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service with an undesirable discharge. On 10 September 1974 and 16 April 1986, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005197

    Original file (20090005197.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 15 May 1973, the applicant’s immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-206 for misconduct, conviction by civil court. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067413C070402

    Original file (2002067413C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The following information was taken from his hearing before the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 17 April 1984. On 27 May 1987, docket number AC86-08662, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) denied the applicant's request.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007879

    Original file (20080007879.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 8 November 1971 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial with issuance of an undesirable discharge. There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.