PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: 20 December 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001058729



         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
Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson
Mr. Roger Able		Member
Mr. Terry L. Placek		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, in effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).

3. The applicant states, in effect, that there were mitigating factors for the misconduct that resulted in his discharge. In support of his application, he provides a letter of support from a veteran who served with him in Vietnam and who now holds a counseling degree. In addition, he provides a letter of support from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) readjustment counselor.

4. The applicant’s military records shows that on 18 October 1968 he entered the Regular Army for 3 years. He successfully completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 35M (Aviation Navigation Equipment Repairer). At the conclusion of his training he was assigned to the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).

5. On 26 July 1969, he arrived in the RVN and was assigned to the
117^th Aviation Company to perform duties in MOS 35M. During his tenure in the RVN, he was advanced to the rank of specialist four (SP4) and he participated in the Vietnam Summer-Fall 1969 campaign. He also earned the Vietnam Service Medal, RVN Campaign Medal with 60 Device, and Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) for meritorious service for the period July 1969 through July 1970.

6. On 22 July 1970, the applicant completed his tour in the RVN and was reassigned to Fort Hood, Texas. He failed to report to his new duty station and on 30 August 1970 he was placed in an absent without leave (AWOL) status. He remained AWOL for 40 days until returning to military control on 9 October 1970.

7. On 17 October 1970, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being AWOL from 30 August to 9 October 1970 and was sentenced to a reduction to private/E-2, a forfeiture of $129.00, and 40 days of restriction.

8. On 26 October 1970, the applicant again departed AWOL from his unit and remained away until 1 March 1972. On 6 March 1972, a court-martial charge was preferred against him for this offense and on 9 March 1972, he consulted legal counsel. After being advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial under circumstances which could lead to a bad conduct discharge or dishonorable discharge, he voluntarily requested to be discharged for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.

9. On 21 March 1972, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge request, directed that he receive an UD, and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank.

10. On 30 March 1972, the applicant was discharged accordingly. At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 1 year, 11 months, and 22 days of creditable active military service and he had accrued a total of 531 days of time lost due to AWOL.

11. On 6 June 1977, the Special Discharge Review Board (SDRB) upgraded the applicant’s UD to a GD. The SDRB based their decision on the fact the applicant had received a decoration other than a service ribbon for his service in the RVN. In connection with this discharge upgrade, the applicant’s rank was restored to private/E-2 and a new separation document (DD Form 214) was issued to document the SDRB action.

12. A veteran who served with the applicant in Vietnam, who subsequently earned a degree in counseling and served as a VA counselor, provided a letter in support of the applicant’s request to this Board. It indicates that he and the applicant lived in the same hooch in the RVN and underwent countless rocket and mortar attacks during their tour. It also indicates that the applicant’s duties included mailman, avionics technician, and perimeter guard duty. He also performed occasional duties as a door gunner on a UH-1 Helicopter, which brought him in direct peril of enemy action. He concludes his statement by commenting that after the applicant rotated back to the United States, he immediately began to have readjustment problems that continue to haunt him today. However, he also comments that this does not change the fact that the applicant served in the RVN with honor and distinction and deserves any and all benefits that may result from a change to his discharge.

13. A VA readjustment counselor also provided a letter of support for the applicant’s discharge upgrade request. This counselor confirms that in May 1997 the applicant began attending counseling sessions and that he attended these sessions for several months. He also indicates that these sessions revealed that the applicant returned from Vietnam disillusioned and didn’t want anything to do with the military. Upon his return from Vietnam, the applicant went home on leave where he remained in his basement and refused to leave for 30 days. Now, as an adult, the applicant realizes that going AWOL was a stupid thing to do but at the time he saw no other way out. The counselor also confirms that the applicant now suffers from a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) that is well documented in VA records and has received medication and counseling for this condition for many years. The VA counselor concludes that it is his hope this condition is taken into account when evaluating the applicant’s behavior prior to his discharge.

---

14. PTSD, an anxiety disorder, was recognized as a psychiatric disorder in 1980 with the publishing of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The condition is described in the current DSM-IV, pages 424 through 429.

15. 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. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an UD.

16. Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) establishes the eligibility of individual members for campaign participation credit, assault landing credit, and unit citation badges awarded during the Vietnam Conflict. It states, in pertinent part, that the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm was awarded to all units assigned or attached in the RVN during the period 20 July 1965 to 28 March 1973. In addition, Table 1 confirms that the applicant’s unit earned the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal Unit Citation for the period 1 May 1969 through 15 May 1970, as authorized in Department of the Army General Order (DAGO) Number 55, issued in 1971.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that mitigating factors contributed to the misconduct which resulted in his discharge and it also considered the issues raised in the supporting letters submitted in his behalf. However, it finds the factors raised are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.

2. The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations and the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3. The Board fully concurs with the decision of the SDRB to upgrade the applicant’s UD to a GD and finally affirms that action. However, it also finds that the applicant’s misconduct clearly diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. Therefore, it concludes that a further upgrade of his discharge to an HD is not warranted.

---

4. During its review of this case, the Board did discover that based on his service in the RVN, the applicant is entitled to receive the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal Unit Citation, and it concludes it would be appropriate to add these awards to his records at this time.

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

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that this Board affirms the SDRB upgrade of the
30 March 1972 discharge of the individual concerned to a GD; that he received the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal Unit Citation; and by providing him a corrected separation document that includes these changes.

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


BOARD VOTE:

__JSN___ __TBF__ ___LE___ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION




                  __John N. Slone__
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001058729
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	2001/12/20
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200
DISCHARGE REASON	SPN 246
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	144.0000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.