PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: 23 January 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002076783


         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
Ms. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Chairperson
Ms. Gail J. Wire		Member
Mr. Patrick H. McGarthy, Jr.		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 that his Report of Transfer or Discharge, DD Form 214, be amended to show he was awarded three awards of the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM). In addition, he requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded, that his reenlistment (RE) code be changed to RE 1, and that the narrative reason for his discharge be changed to Convenience of the Government.

3. The applicant states his average conduct and efficiency ratings were good during his first enlistment. He received awards and decorations during his first enlistment. Although he did not have combat service, he served in Vietnam and volunteered for convoy duty. He has been a good citizen since his discharge. His ability to serve was impaired because of marital problems. He married before he enlisted for the first time. His wife would write often in the beginning, but later his family informed him she was going out with other men. When he returned to the States, his wife came to live with him. By then, he had a very bad drinking problem. He found out his wife was seeing another man. He separated from the Army. He could not get over his wife's infidelities. He lost his job and then reenlisted in 1973. He was still coping with the breakup of his marriage and was having a hard time with coping with his experiences during his Vietnam tour. He could not take it anymore so he went absent without leave (AWOL) once or twice. He was released from the Army with a dishonorable discharge. He remarried in 1975 and was married for about 20 years. He received several awards from the company he worked for. He has been saved and was called to preach. He and his wife divorced and he quit his job. He has not remarried and is now on social security disability. When he got back from overseas, he just could not adjust to stateside duty and the attitude of many Americans toward Vietnam veterans.

4. As supporting evidence the applicant provides his DD Form 214s, General Orders 4429 dated 27 August 1970, three citations for award of the ARCOM, one certificate of appreciation, his Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20), his Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) progress report, verification of employment, and five pictures of driving awards.

5. The applicant’s military records show that he was inducted into the Army on 24 June 1969. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 13A (Field Artillery Basic). He was awarded primary MOS 76Y (Supply Specialist) about a year later.

6. The applicant arrived in Vietnam and was assigned to Headquarters Support Battery, 6th Battalion, 29th Artillery, 4th Infantry Division on 4 December 1969 where he performed duties as a 76A/76Y (Supply Clerk/Supply Specialist). He departed Vietnam on 31 October 1970 after receiving credit for three campaigns.
A citation shows he had been awarded the ARCOM for meritorious achievement for the period 29 November to 19 December 1969 (orders are not available). A citation and certificate shows he was awarded the ARCOM 1st oak leaf cluster for meritorious achievement for the period 25 January to 2 February 1970 (no orders are available). General Orders 3460, Headquarters, 4th Infantry Division dated 17 June 1970 show he was awarded the ARCOM 1st oak leaf cluster (a citation and certificate show he was awarded it for meritorious achievement for the period 20 March to 23 April 1970). General Orders 4429, Headquarters, 4th Infantry Division dated 27 August 1970 amended General Orders 3460 to read the ARCOM 2d oak leaf cluster. General Orders 5004, Headquarters, 4th Infantry Division dated 12 October 1970 awarded him the ARCOM 3d oak leaf cluster (the period of the award is not listed and no citation or certificate are available).

7. The applicant was honorably released from active duty on 23 June 1971 after completing 2 years of creditable active service with no lost time. His DA Form 20 shows his conduct and efficiency were rated as excellent throughout his service. His DD Form 214 for the period ending 23 June 1971 shows he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Campaign Medal with device 1960, the Vietnam Service Medal, two overseas bars, and the Marksman Qualification Badge Rifle M-14.

8. The applicant reenlisted on 10 January 1973 for the U. S. Army Combat Arms Enlistment Option. Orders dated 12 January 1973 awarded him primary MOS 13A and secondary MOS 76Y.

9. On 30 January 1973, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for wrongfully possessing some alcohol. On 6 February 1973, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for twice failing to report to his place of duty.

10. The applicant departed AWOL from 4 June to 6 August 1973. He departed AWOL again from 13 August 1973 to 4 February 1974.

11. On 5 February 1974, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with being AWOL from 13 August 1973 to on or about 5 February 1974.

12. On 6 February 1974, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He submitted a statement in his own behalf. He stated that he thought it would be better for him, his family, and the Army if he could get out of the Army. His father and mother were disabled. He had a job if he could get out but with him in the Army he could not be there when they needed him. When he was AWOL, he was at home helping his father make a living.

13. On 26 February 1974, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive an undesirable discharge.

14. On 7 March 1974, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. He had completed 6 months and 7 days of creditable active service for that period and a total of 2 years, 6 months, and 7 days of creditable active service and had 234 days of lost time. He was separated on temporary records and no awards or decorations are listed on this DD Form 214.

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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

16. Army Regulation 635-200 states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. The type of discharge and character of service will be determined solely by the military record during the current enlistment from which the soldier is being separated.

17. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the U.S. Army Reserve. Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment. That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.

18. At the time, RE 3B applied to persons not qualified for continued Army service because they had lost time during their last period of service but the disqualification was waivable. RE-4 applied to persons not qualified for continued Army service, such as those separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and the disqualification was not waivable.

19. Army Regulation 672-5-1, in effect at the time, provided policy and criteria concerning individual military decorations. It stated that the Army Good Conduct Medal was awarded for each 3 years of continuous enlisted active Federal military service completed on or after 27 August 1940 and, for the first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950 of less than 3 years but more than 1 year. At the time, a soldier’s conduct and efficiency ratings must have been rated as “excellent” for the entire period of qualifying service. It also provided for the wear of one bronze service star on the appropriate service medal for each credited campaign.

20. Department of the Army General Orders 8, 1974, announced award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation to Headquarters, U. S. Military Assistance Command and its subordinate units during the period 8 February 1962 to 28 March 1973 and to Headquarters, U. S. Army Vietnam and its subordinate units during the period 20 July 1965 to 28 March 1973.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. There is sufficient evidence to show the applicant was awarded four awards of the ARCOM.

2. The applicant met the eligibility criteria for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal for his first period of service. He is authorized to wear three bronze service stars on the Vietnam Service Medal. He was also assigned to a unit during a period of time that unit was awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation and so is authorized this unit award.

3. Regarding the applicant's request to change his RE code, to upgrade his discharge, and to change the narrative reason for his separation, 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.

4. The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.
5. The applicant provided a statement with his request for discharge and in it he mentioned only the hardship his service in the Army was causing his parents. As a prior service member, he should have been aware that there were administrative remedies he could have sought, such as requesting a hardship discharge, to resolve his problem. There was no mention of the other circumstances the applicant now contends contributed to his departing AWOL.

6. The applicant's good prior service was recognized when he was honorably separated from his initial period of service. The type of discharge and character of service he was given for his period of service beginning 10 January 1973 was determined solely by the military record during that enlistment. The RE codes he was given were properly based upon the reason for his discharge and his record of service. While the Board has taken cognizance of his good post-service conduct, this factor does not warrant the relief requested.

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

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the applicant be awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 24 June 1969 - 23 June 1971.

2. That both of the applicant's DD Forms 214 be amended to show he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with device 1960, the Vietnam Service Medal with three bronze service stars, two overseas bars, the Marksman Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14), the Army Good Conduct Medal, four awards of the Army Commendation Medal, and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation.

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

BOARD VOTE:

__KAN__ __GJW _ __PHM __ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION



                  __Kathleen A. Newman__
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002076783
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	2003/01/23
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1974/03/07
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 10
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00
BOARD DECISION	PARTIAL
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	110.00
2.	110.04
3.	100.03
4.
5.
6.