RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            01 JULY 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003099549


      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. Deborah S. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Lana McGlynn                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Linda Simmons                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. John Meixell                  |     |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).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his 1970 undesirable discharge be upgraded
to a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he served a tour of duty in Vietnam where his
performance was excellent and recognized by an award of the Army
Commendation Medal.  He states that when he returned to the United States
he, like other Vietnam veterans, was treated with scorn and called “baby
killers.”  He asks that the Board “understand” what this does to a
personable, 22 year-old kid who was drafted from a small rural town.

3.  He states that apparently his records show that he underwent a
psychiatric examination in December 1969 which showed “no mental
abnormalities which would justify” his unauthorized absences.  However, he
maintains that he was never given a psychiatric examination and if he had,
it may have “brought to the forefront the facts” outlined in the previous
paragraph.

4.  The applicant states that he reenlisted in the Regular Army and was
promised a change in specialty to a radio repairman with the necessary
training.  He states that the training never occurred.  He states this is
just one of the many things that was “happening at the time” he went AWOL
(absent without leave).

5.  He states he now has terminal cancer and is asking for compassion in
that his exposure to “Agent Orange” while in Vietnam has been proven to
cause lung cancer.  He notes that he is a “born-again Christian who has a
great love for God, country, and family” and that it is his “fervent wish”
to have his discharge upgraded.

6.  The applicant provides three statements supporting his request to
upgrade his discharge.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant was 20 years
old when he was inducted and entered active duty on 22 October 1967.  He
received excellent conduct and efficiency ratings while undergoing training
at Fort Benning, Georgia and Fort Polk, Louisiana.  In April 1968 he was
assigned to Vietnam as an infantryman.

2.  On 14 July 1968, while assigned to the 39th Infantry in Vietnam, the
applicant was discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  His
reenlistment contract, executed on 15 July 1968 for a period of 3 years,
guaranteed the applicant an assignment to a signal battalion for duty in
specialty 31M (Radio Relay & Carrier Operator).  On 17 July 1968 the
applicant was reassigned from the 39th Infantry to the 9th Signal Battalion
and was reassigned from duties as an infantryman (11B) to duties as a 31M.
In October 1968 he was promoted to pay grade E-4.

3.  On 17 April 1969, according to an entry on the applicant’s Department
of the Army Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record), he departed Vietnam on
17 April 1969 after having been awarded the Army Commendation Medal for
meritorious service.

4.  In June 1969 he was assigned to Fort Knox, Kentucky, as a Field Radio
Repairman in specialty 31E.

5.  On 13 July 1969 the applicant departed AWOL.  He returned to military
control on 3 September 1969, was placed in confinement, and subsequently
convicted by a special court-martial.  He departed AWOL again on 27 October
1969, following his release from confinement on 19 October 1969.  He
returned to military control in November 1969 and was convicted by a second
special court-martial.

6.  On 29 December 1969, while in confinement at Fort Knox, Kentucky, the
applicant acknowledged receipt of a proposed separation action for
unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.  He indicated
that he had consulted with counsel, that he understood the ramifications of
the less than honorable conditions discharge, and waived his attendant
rights, including his right to have his case heard by a board of officers
and to make statements in his own behalf.

7.  In submitting his recommendation for administrative separation, the
applicant’s commander noted the applicant’s service in Vietnam and his
award of the Army Commendation Medal but recommended that the applicant be
discharged and issued an undesirable discharge certificate, notwithstanding
that information.

8.  The applicant’s file does contain a statement, authenticated by a
psychiatrist, that the applicant was “examined on 10 December 1969 at [the]
Mental Hygiene Consultation Service” at Fort Knox and found to be mentally
responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the
right.  He was cleared “for any administrative action deemed appropriate by
the command.”

9.  The commander’s recommendation was approved and on 16 January 1970 the
applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212
and issued an undesirable discharge certificate.  He had approximately 20
months of creditable service and nearly 200 days of lost time due to AWOL
and confinement.

10.  On 1 August 1995 the Army Discharge Review Board unanimously denied
the applicant’s petition to upgrade the character of his discharge.  In
that application, the applicant argued that he felt that he had been a good
citizen, was married and had a child, and that while he knows he did wrong
he did serve in Vietnam and was commended for that service.

11.  The statements submitted in support of the applicant’s petition are
from three individuals who indicate they have known the applicant for many
years.  They also state, in effect, that he is a fine, honest, loyal
American.

12.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  It
provided for the separation for unfitness as a result of a variety of
situations, including frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with
civil or military authorities; drug addiction or the unauthorized use or
possession of habit-forming drugs or marijuana; an established pattern of
shirking; and an established pattern of dishonorable failure to pay just
debts or to contribute adequate support to dependents.  When separation for
unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered
appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing
argument in support of his request.  His contention that his age, and
problem with acceptance following his return from Vietnam, somehow
justified or excused his behavior is without foundation.  His situation was
not unlike the thousands of other young Soldiers who returned from Vietnam
to similar situations but were able to continue to serve honorably.

2.  The evidence available to the Board confirms that a psychiatrist saw
the applicant as part of his separation process and his insistence that he
was not is contrary to the documents in his Official Military Personnel
File.

3.  While the Board is sympathetic to the applicant’s current medical and
emotional situation, the fact that he may have been a good citizen and
father, and that he served a tour of duty in Vietnam for which he received
an Army Commendation Medal, none of those factors, either individually or
collectively warrant upgrading the character of the applicant’s discharge.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___LM __  ___LS  __  ___JM __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.





            ____ Lana McGlynn____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003099549                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040701                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |