| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Robert L. Duecaster | Member | ||
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Member |
2. The applicant requests, in effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD), and that his separation document (DD Form 214) be corrected to add the Purple Heart (PH) to the list of authorized awards.
3. The applicant states, in effect, that his immaturity and inability to live with those who were different from the people he lived with on the reservation impaired his ability to serve. He states that he served in combat in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) and was wounded in action. He further states that in looking back he only wishes that he could have had a commander that looked out for him in a manner that would have allowed him to understand the ramifications of his misconduct. He states that there was some discrimination toward him based on his American Indian status and that he also suffered from a feeling of not belonging based on his background. As a result of these feelings, he turned to alcohol and this led to several stints of his being absent without leave (AWOL).
4. The applicant claims that since leaving the Army, he has worked diligently to improve his life by being alcohol free and working in the community to help individuals improve their life. He now requests that his discharge be upgraded based on his positive contribution to society subsequent to his term of enlistment. In support of his application, he submits three letters of support, a copy of his DD Form 214, and a copy of the orders awarding him the PH.
5. The applicant’s military records show that he entered the Army for a period of 2 years on 28 June 1966. He was trained in, awarded, and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11H (Infantry Direct Fire Crewman). He continuously served on active duty for 2 years and 12 days, until being released from active duty (REFRAD) with a GD on 30 August 1968, by reason of expiration of term of service (ETS).
6. The applicant’s record does contain an extensive history of AWOL related misconduct that included his accruing 322 days of time lost due to AWOL. These offenses resulted in his conviction by special court-martial on three separate occasions for AWOL.
7. The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant upon his REFRAD shows that he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of ETS. It also shows he had earned the following awards: National Defense Service Medal; Vietnam Service Medal with 2 bronze service stars; Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with 60 Device; and Combat Infantryman Badge.
8. The applicant Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains a correction to the applicant’s separation document (DD Form 215), dated 3 September 1986, which added the PH to the list of authorized awards contained in
Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaigns Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the applicant 30 August 1969
DD Form 214.
9. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statue of limitations.
10. Army Regulation 635-200 in effect at the time of the applicant’s separation provided the discretionary authority to issue a GD in connection with separation by reason of ETS. Chapter 4 of Army Regulation 635-200 currently in effect states, in pertinent part, that a soldier being separated upon expiration of enlistment or fulfillment of service obligation will be awarded a character of service of honorable. A GD is not an option under current standards.
11. Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 1332.28 established uniform policies, procedures, and standards for the review of discharges. It states, in effect, that a discharge will be considered inequitable if there is substantial doubt the applicant would have received the same discharge under current policies and procedures.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The Board finds the applicant’s discharge was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations in effect at the time. However, it concludes that it is inequitable under current regulatory standards.
2. Regulations currently in effect mandate the award of an HD to soldiers separating at ETS, and do not allow for the issue of a GD. Further, DOD policy for discharge review by Discharge Review Boards stipulates that discharges will be considered to be inequitable if there is a substantial doubt that the member would receive the same discharge under current policies and procedures.
3. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was separated at ETS and issued a GD after completing 2 years and 12 days of active military service. The record also confirms that the applicant completed a combat tour in the RVN and received both the PH and CIB. The Board also notes the applicant’s outstanding post service conduct, as evidenced in the supporting statements. Thus, the Board concludes that it would be appropriate to apply current standards and upgrade the applicant’s discharge at this time.
4. The applicant is advised that the enclosed DD Form 215, dated 3 September 1986, added his earned PH to Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaigns Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of his 30 August 1969 DD Form 214, and no further Board action is necessary on this issue.
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 an honorable discharge on
30 August 1969, in lieu of the general discharge of the same date he now holds; and by providing him a corrected separation document that reflects this change.
BOARD VOTE:
__RLD___ __KH___ __GJW__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
Gail J. Wire
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2003087941 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1969/08/30 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | ETS |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 954 | 144.0200 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085459C070212
The applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains no orders or documents indicating that he was ever recommended for or awarded the PH while he was serving in the RVN. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he should be awarded the PH. By regulation, in order to support an award of the PH, it is necessary to establish that a member was wounded in action and that the wound, for which the award is being made, required treatment by a medical officer.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088292C070403
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 | CY2003 | 2003086124C070212
By regulation, to support the award of the PH, there must be evidence showing that a member was wounded or injured as a result of enemy action. Lacking any derogatory information on file that would disqualify him from receiving the AGCM, or a specific disqualification from any of the active duty unit commanders for which he served, the Board finds that he is entitled to the AGCM based on his qualifying period of honorable active duty service from 26 January 1967 through 25 January 1970. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075951C070403
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. Army Regulation 600-8-22 also provides that the Good Conduct Medal is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by their conduct, efficiency and fidelity during a qualifying period of active duty enlisted service. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3, Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084994C070212
However, the Board is only able to confirm his entitlement to the BSM with “V” Device. During the review of this case, the Board found the applicant is entitled to other awards that were not included in his record. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case for the individual concerned be corrected by showing that he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device; by awarding him the first award of the Army Good Conduct Medal, for his qualifying period of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081751C070215
The Board notes the applicant’s claim of entitlement to the PH, CIB, and Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal. Therefore, the Board finds no basis for awarding him the CIB at this time. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by awarding the individual concerned the Army Good Conduct Medal, for his qualifying period of honorable active duty service from 1 June 1965 through 31 May 1968; by showing that his RVN service entitles him to the Vietnam...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002083343C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to fully honorable. Since the applicant’s separation packet is not contained in his records and there is no evidence or indication of any error in the applicant’s discharge proceedings, the Board must presume regularity, that the applicant’s discharge was processed in accordance with the applicable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053032C070420
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. In addition, his Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains no documents or orders that suggest he was ever recommended for or received any individual awards or decorations during his tour in Vietnam, this includes the CIB and PH. Further, there is no evidence of record that would confirm that he ever...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070001310C071029
On 5 January 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) voted to upgrade the applicant's discharge to general, under honorable conditions based on his overall record of service, which included combat service in the RVN. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001201C070205
The applicant states, in effect, he was never awarded the PH for being wounded in action on 10 February 1968, in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN). The applicant provides a third-party statement from an individual who indicates he was the applicant's unit commander in the RVN. However, given there are no medical treatments records confirming he was treated for the burns in question, or that verify the burns were received as a result of enemy action, or that he was awarded the PH by proper...