Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060735C070421
Original file (2001060735C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: 15 November 2001
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001060735


         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:

Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright Chairperson
Mr. Stanley Kelley Member
Ms. Karen A. Heinz 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 undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD).

3. The applicant states, in effect, that he served on active duty honorably in the United States Marine Corps (USMC) for 4 years and in the Army for almost
3 years. He indicates that his honorable service also included his completion of combat tours in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) in both branches of service. He claims that he was discharged from the Army because of a one month period of drug use in Germany and that he has had to live with this mistake for 30 years. He finally comments that an isolated mistake and his confused thinking should not cancel out his overall record of honorable service which should warrant an upgrade to his discharge.

4. The applicant’s military records show that he served on active duty in the USMC for 4 years, from 6 June 1966 to 5 June 1970, at which time he was honorably separated at the expiration of his enlistment. The separation document issued to him for this period of service confirms that he had been trained and served as a Motor Transport Operator and held the rank of corporal/E-4 on the date of his separation. It also shows that he completed a combat tour in Vietnam and earned the following awards during his tenure on active duty in the USMC: National Defense Service Medal; Vietnam Service Medal; Vietnam Campaign Medal; Combat Action Ribbon; and the Good Conduct Medal.

5. On 14 July 1971, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years and on 27 July 1971, while at the entrance station at Fort Dix, New Jersey, he reenlisted for
4 years. He entered the Army in the rank of private first class/E-3, in military occupational specialty 64C (Motor Transport Operator), and he was assigned to the RVN for his first permanent duty assignment.

6. The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows that he arrived in the RVN on 13 September 1971 and was further assigned to the
536th Engineer Detachment, United States Army Pacific (USARPAC)-Vietnam. During his assignment in the RVN he performed duties a Motor Transport Operator and Senior Motor Transport Operator and on 2 November 1971, he was promoted to specialist four (SP4). He completed his tour in the RVN on 30 May 1972 and he received excellent conduct and efficiency ratings for his performance with this unit.

7. Although not entered in his DA Form 20, the applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains a copy of General Order Number 681, dated
30 April 1972, which confirms that at the completion of his tour in the RVN he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service during the period 13 September 1971 to 30 May 1972.

8. At the completion of his tour in the RVN, the applicant was reassigned to
Fort Hood, Texas where he served until September 1973. He was then assigned to Germany where he served until May 1974. He was medically evacuated from Germany and reassigned to the Medical Holding Detachment, Womack Army Hospital, Fort Bragg, North Carolina where he remained until his separation on
7 June 1974.

9. The applicant’s record reveals no disciplinary history prior to the events that led to his separation processing. Further, it is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the events that led to his discharge processing. However, it does include a properly constituted separation document (DD Form 214) that contains the authority and reason for his discharge. This document was authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his separation.

10. The DD Form 214 also confirms that on 7 June 1974, the applicant was undesirably discharged form the Army under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial. At the time of his separation, he had completed 2 years, 10 months, and 15 days of creditable active service on his current enlistment, a total of 6 years, 10 months, and 28 days of active military service, and he had accrued 26 days of time lost.

11. Block 26 (decorations, medals, badges, commendations, citations, and campaign ribbons awarded or authorized) of the DD Form 214 indicates the applicant earned the following awards during his active duty tenure: National Defense Service Medal; Vietnam Service Medal; Vietnam Campaign Medal; Good Conduct Medal; and Combat Action Ribbon. This list did not include the Army Commendation Medal awarded to the applicant at the conclusion of his tour in the RVN.

12. 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 undesirable discharge.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that his discharge should be upgraded based on his overall record of service which includes combat service in the RVN and it finds this claim has merit.


2. The record is void of the specific facts and circumstances that led to the applicant’s discharge processing. However, it does include a properly constituted DD Form 214 that contains the reason and authority and the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process.

3. However, the Board does find the UD the applicant received was too harsh based on the lack of a prior disciplinary history and given the honorable nature of the preponderance of his military service that included 2 combat tours in the RVN. Therefore, the Board concludes it would be appropriate to grant the requested relief and to upgrade the applicant’s UD to a general, under honorable conditions discharge and to restore his grade to SP4 accordingly.

4. The Board also notes that the Army Commendation Medal the applicant was awarded at the completion of his tour in the RVN was erroneously omitted from his separation document and it concludes it would be appropriate to add it to his separation document at this time.

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

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned received a general, under honorable conditions discharge on 7 June 1974, in lieu of the undesirable discharge of the same date he now holds; that he held the rank of SP4 on the date of his discharge; that he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal; and by providing him corrected separation document that reflects these changes.

BOARD VOTE:

__INW___ ___SK__ __KAH___ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION




                  __Irene N. Wheelwright__



INDEX

CASE ID AR2001060735
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED 2001/11/15
TYPE OF DISCHARGE UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE 1974/06/07
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-200 C10
DISCHARGE REASON In Lieu of Court-Martial
BOARD DECISION GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 189 110.0000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.



Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080553C070215

    Original file (2002080553C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant at the time confirmed that he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of court-martial, and accordingly was assigned an SPD code of 246. It also stipulates that a bronze service star is authorized with this award for each campaign a member was credited with while serving in the RVN. Therefore, the Board concludes that it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s separation...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087279C070212

    Original file (2003087279C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record for his first enlistment indicates that during this first period of active duty service, he completed an overseas tour of duty in Korea, and he earned the National Defense Service Medal (NDSM). The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to him on the date of his separation from this period of active duty service indicates that up to that date he had earned the NDSM, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM), and the Army Good Conduct Medal...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018361

    Original file (20090018361.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests upgrade of his undesirable discharge (UD) to a general under honorable conditions discharge (GD). Although there is no formal record of the mental evaluation, the medical treatment records show military medical personnel were attempting to assist the applicant with his drug problems.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074844C070403

    Original file (2002074844C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 13 May 1974, the applicant was discharged accordingly. In December 1970, long before the applicant was returned to military control after being found by the FBI in 1974, the unit commander from his unit in the RVN sent a letter to his mother informing her of his AWOL status.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090232C070212

    Original file (2003090232C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Member The applicant and counsel if any did not appear before the Board. This program, known as the DOD Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP) required, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, that a discharge upgrade to either honorable or general be issued in the case of any individual who had either completed a normal tour of duty in Southeast Asia, been wounded in action, been awarded a military decoration other than a service medal, had received an honorable discharge...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017556C070206

    Original file (20050017556C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Ernestine R. Fields | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 14 April 1972, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he receive an UD. The applicant's honorable service is documented in the DD Form 214 he was issued on 30 March 1971, at the time of his reenlistment.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004275C070206

    Original file (20050004275C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. He claims his record while serving in the military is no less than excellent. He states that he never received the court-martial.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000344

    Original file (20110000344.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Item 40 (Wounds) is blank and the PH is not included in the list of awards contained in item 41 (Awards and Decorations). Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides the Army's awards policy. By regulation, in order to support award of the PH the member must have been wounded in action and there must be evidence the wound for which the award is being made was received as a result of enemy action, the wound must have required medical treatment by medical personnel, and this medical...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088292C070403

    Original file (2003088292C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests, in effect that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). The separation document also verifies that at the time of his discharge, he had completed 1 year, 10 months, and 24 days of creditable active military service, and he had accrued 470 days of time lost due to AWOL. Therefore, the Board concludes that it would be appropriate and serve the interest of equity to upgrade his discharge to a general, under honorable conditions...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001077

    Original file (20090001077.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant's record shows he was awarded the ARCOM for meritorious service in the RVN from 1 August 1970 through 20 September 1970. The evidence of record confirms that based on his discharge date of 2 February 1972, the applicant would have qualified to have his discharge reviewed by the SDRB, which was established in response to the DOD directive requiring Military Service Departments to review all less than fully honorable administrative discharges issued between 4 August 1964 and 28...