PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: 17 April 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002075785


         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. Joyce A. Hall		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson
Mr. Harry B. Oberg		Member
Mr. Ronald J. Weaver		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 an honorable discharge.

3. In effect, that he had approximately 23 months of honorable service in Vietnam. He was sent directly to Germany and he could not get along with his superiors because he had Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

4. The applicant's military record shows, that on 9 June 1969, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 36K10 (Wireman). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3. The applicant’s record indicates that between 23 June and 30 November 1969, his conduct and efficiency were rated as "excellent."

5. The applicant’s record indicates, that he served in Vietnam from 1 December 1969 to 16 March 1971, a period of over 15 months. The applicant’s conduct and efficiency during his service in Vietnam were rated as "excellent." On 3 May 1971, the applicant was reassigned to a unit in Germany.

6. On 26 May 1971, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for dereliction of duty by failing to safeguard his weapon thereby causing it to be temporarily lost. His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2, a forfeiture of $25.00 pay and 14 days restriction.

7. On 9 June 1971, the applicant accepted an NJP under Article 15, UCMJ, for being disrespectful to a superior commissioned officer by failing to salute him. His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $25.00 pay (suspended for
2 months), 14 days restriction and extra duty.

8. On 22 June 1971, the company commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-212, for unfitness. The commander stated, that the applicant had been given plenty of opportunities to function as a soldier; however, he did not cooperate to any degree. The commander further stated, that a court-martial or similar disciplinary action would not do any good because the applicant has no desire to remain in the service and fulfill his obligation. He has disrupted the morale and discipline within the unit.

9. On 26 June 1971, a physical evaluation found the applicant fit for retention. On the same day, the applicant waived the psychiatric examination. There is no indication in the medical records available to the Board that the applicant suffered from PTSD.

10. On 28 June 1971, the applicant acknowledged notification of the action to separate him under the provision of Army regulation 635-212, for unfitness. The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated
separation action and the rights available to him. He waived consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers. He elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.

11. On 16 July 1971, the commanding general approved the recommendation, waived further rehabilitation requirements and directed the issuance of a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

12. On 27 July 1971, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness with a UD. He had completed 2 years, 1 months and 19 days of creditable active service.

13. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 6a (1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness. A UD was normally considered appropriate.

14. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provided that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

15. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that 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. A characterization of under
honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier's
separation specifically allows such characterization.

16. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-3, in effect at the time of the applicant's separation from the Army provided for discharge by reason by Secretarial Authority with either an honorable or general discharge.

CONCLUSIONS :

1. The Board considered the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge from
undesirable to honorable.
2. In reviewing the record of the applicant's service, the Board noted that the basis for his separation from the Army with a undesirable discharge was two NJP's, one for failing to safeguard his weapon and one for failing to salute a commissioned officer.

3. The Board also noted that the applicant's service during the period 23 June
1969 to 25 May 1971 resulted in conduct and efficiency ratings of "excellent."

4. The Board also noted that the applicant served honorably in Vietnam for the period 13 December 1969 to 14 March 1971, a period of over 15 months.

5. The Board also noted that there is no evidence in the applicant's service personnel records which shows that the chain of command took action to rehabilitatively transfer him prior to separation with an undesirable discharge.

6. There is no medical evidence the applicant suffered from PTSD.

7. Based on the forgoing, the Board determined:

         a. The offenses for which the applicant received NJP were minor in that they were not crimes against other soldiers, they did not involve physical assaults, and they could have been handled through effective counseling.

         b. The applicant's honorable service for almost two years including
15 months of service in Vietnam with conduct and efficiency ratings of excellent mitigates his minor offenses.

         c. The applicant's offenses were not the result of PTSD.

         d. The applicant's separation with an undesirable discharge was too harsh and was inequitable in view of the minor nature of his offenses, his substantial good service, and the absence of rehabilitation.

         e. The applicant's overall service generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel in spite of his two minor infractions.

         f. The applicant's overall service warranted separation with either a general or an honorable discharge but not the undesirable discharge he received.

8. Based on the determinations in paragraph 6 above and the adverse affect of the applicant's undesirable discharge for over 30 years, the Board concluded it would be appropriate to upgrade his discharge to honorable and to change the narrative reason and authority for separation.
9. Therefore, in view of the foregoing it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s record as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION :

1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected to show that the undesirable discharge now held by the applicant is void and of no force or effect.

2. That the Department issue to the applicant an Honorable Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 27 February 1971, in lieu of the Undesirable Discharge Certificate of the same date now held by him.

3. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was separated from the service with an Honorable Discharge Certificate on 27 July 1971 and that the reason for discharge is Secretarial Authority under the provisions of paragraph
5-3 of Army Regulation 635-200.

BOARD VOTE :

_ HBO ___ _ RJW __ __ WTM __ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________ ________ _______ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION




                  Mr. Walter T. Morrison___
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075785
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20030417
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Schneider
ISSUES 1.	144.5000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.