Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | ||
Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | ||
Mr. William D. Barr | Member |
2. The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded and that his Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, be corrected to reflect his correct foreign service.
3. The applicant states that he spent time in Germany. He feels that the fact he was given a bad discharge after having spent 10 months in Vietnam and doing his bad time was unjust. He provides his DD Form 214 as supporting evidence.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 November 1966. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 67A (Aircraft Mechanic).
5. The applicant's Enlisted Qualification Record, DA Form 20, item 42 shows that he was arrested on 14 May 1967 by civil authorities while in an absent without leave (AWOL) status on a charge of larceny. He was convicted and he opted for 30 days confinement. He was released from civil confinement on or about 14 June 1967.
6. Apparently, the applicant was in pre-trial confinement from 9 November through 13 December 1967. On 14 December 1967, he was convicted of being AWOL from 1 July to on or about 3 November 1967. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months (suspended until 5 July 1968) and to forfeit $60.00 pay for 6 months.
7. The applicant's DA Form 20, item 31 shows he departed enroute to Germany on 16 January 1968.
8. Apparently, the applicant's suspended sentence to confinement was vacated. His DA Form 20, item 44 shows he was confined from 31 May - 9 July 1968.
9. The applicant's DA Form 20, item 38 shows his unit transferred to Fort Lewis, WA on 16 July 1968. Item 31 shows he departed enroute to Vietnam on 16 May 1969.
10. Between August and November 1969, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on four occasions for being disrespectful in language and deportment toward his superior noncommissioned officer, for failing to go to his prescribed place of duty, for absenting himself from his appointed place of duty and failing to have an authorized pass in his possession, and for willfully disobeying a lawful order from his superior noncommissioned officer.
11. On 25 October 1969, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation. He was found to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.
12. On 15 November 1969, the company commander initiated separation action against the applicant under Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.
13. On 18 November 1969, the applicant was advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action. He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived personal appearance before such a board, elected not to make a statement on his behalf, and waived representation by counsel.
14. On 26 November 1969, the applicant's commander formally recommended the applicant be separated for unfitness. The commander cited the applicant's numerous Article 15s, five counseling sessions, his rehabilitative transfer from another unit, and his total indifference to his assigned duties, his fellow workers, and a rejection of authority. The applicant had expressed the desire during counseling to get out of the Army and to have people stop telling him what to do.
15. On 1 December 1969, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.
16. On 26 February 1970, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
17. The applicant's DA Form 20, item 38 shows he departed Vietnam enroute to the States on 4 March 1970. It shows that his conduct and efficiency were both rated as unsatisfactory the entire time he served in Vietnam.
18. On 18 March 1970, the applicant was discharged, with an undesirable, UOTHC discharge, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness. He had completed 2 years, 8 months, and 18 days of creditable active service and had 233 days of lost time. He had served 4 months and 21 days in Germany (time in confinement not counted) and 9 months and 19 days in Vietnam for a total of 1 year, 2 months, and 10 days of foreign service. His DD Form 214, item 22c shows he served in the U. S. Army Pacific (USARPAC) for 10 months and 7 days. (His DD Form 214, item 30, which shows he served in Vietnam from 12 May 1969 - 18 March 1970, does not match the information entered on his DA Form 20.)
19. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, sexual perversion, drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming drugs or marijuana, an established pattern for shirking, an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts or failure to contribute adequate support to dependents, were subject to separation for unfitness. Such action would be taken when it was clearly established that despite attempts to rehabilitate or develop him as a satisfactory soldier further effort was unlikely to succeed.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's DD Form 214, item 22c is incorrect. He served in both the U. S. Army Europe (USAREUR) and USARPAC for a total of 1 year, 2 months, and 10 days.
2. Regarding the applicant's characterization of discharge, in order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
3. 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 fact that he served his time in confinement does not mitigate his later misconduct. It is noted that he served almost 10 months in Vietnam; however, his service was not honorable and both his conduct and his efficiency were rated as unsatisfactory the entire time he served there. The characterization of his discharge as under other than honorable conditions was and still is appropriate.
4. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the applicant's DD Form 214, item 22c be corrected to show he served in USAREUR and USARPAC for 1 year, 2 months, and 10 days.
2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.
BOARD VOTE:
__FNE __ __ BJE _ __WDB __ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
__Fred N. Eichorn _
CHAIRPERSON
CASE ID | AR2002076394 |
SUFFIX | |
RECON | |
DATE BOARDED | 2002/09/10 |
TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1970/03/18 |
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-212 |
DISCHARGE REASON | A51.00 |
BOARD DECISION | PARTIAL GRANT |
REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
2. | 100.00 |
3. | |
4. | |
5. | |
6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007674
He was issued a second DD Form 214 for the enlistment period 30 April 1967 to 12 December 1969 that shows in item 22c his last overseas command was in USAREUR. During the timeframe the applicant served Army Regulation 635-5 provided that a Soldier would be issued a DD Form 214 for each enlistment period and item 22c would show the last overseas command in which a Soldier performed. A later revision of Army Regulation 635-5 directed that the inclusive date of service for duty in the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000399C070208
The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show he was not absent without leave (AWOL) for 399 days and that he served at least 19 months of overseas service. On 9 April 1969, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from on or about 6 December 1968 to on or about 15 February 1969. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely file.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020186
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) shows during his service in Vietnam with the 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry, the unit was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation, for service from 6 to 23 November 1967 based on Department of the Army General Orders (DAGO) Number 5, dated 1979; and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011286
From 1951 to 1962, item 24 of the DD Form 214 in effect at the time showed the total active duty outside the continental limits of the United States for the period covered by the DD Form 214. b. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states that the Korea Defense Service Medal is authorized for award to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who served on active duty in support of the defense of the Republic of Korea. Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Military Awards), in effect at...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006357
His DD Form 214 shows in: a. item 22c (Foreign and/or Sea Service) - he completed 2 years, 2 months, and 14 days of foreign service, with an entry to see item 30 (Remarks) b. item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized): * Army Commendation Medal * National Defense Service Medal * Vietnam Service Medal * Vietnam Campaign Medal * 3 overseas service bars * Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14 and M-16) c....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011067
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending 12 January 1973 to show his service in the Republic of Vietnam. Item 11d (Effective Date) shows the entry "26 Aug 69"; c. Item 22 (Statement of Service) shows the following entries: (1) Item 22a(1) (Net Service This Period) shows "3 1 0"; (2) Item 22a(2) (Other Service) shows "0 6 15"; (3) Item 22a(3) (Total) shows "3 7 15"; (4) Item 22b...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003957
The applicant provides, in support of his application, his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record), reviewed on 2 June 1970 and audited 30 October 1973; Headquarters, U.S. Army Support Element, Military Region 1 (Vietnam), General Orders Number 148, dated 4 July 1972; DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) with an effective date of 26 October 1969; and DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) with an effective date of 17 May 1974. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000326
Item 30 of his DD Form 214 does not show any service in Vietnam. The evidence of record shows he was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: * deleting from item 22c of his DD Form 214 the entry "0 11 29" and adding the entry "02 01 00 USARPAC" * adding to item 30 of his DD Form 214 the entry "Vietnam Service 8 January 1968 - 7 February 1970" * Adding to item 24 of his DD Form...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000134
While in Germany, he was honorably discharged on 1 November 1967 for the purpose of immediate enlistment in the Regular Army. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states: a. He served a qualifying period for award of the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960) and his DD Form 214 for the period ending 22 May 1969 should be corrected to show this award.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016289
The applicant requests his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected to show he completed 18 months of foreign service instead of 11 months and 29 days, as currently listed. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Based upon orders and the entries on the applicant's DA Form 20, it is evident the number of months currently shown for foreign service on the applicant's DD Form 214 is incorrect. _______ _x _______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is...