RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        17 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060001141


      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. Joyce A. Wright               |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Peter B. Fisher               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Rowland C. Heflin             |     |Member               |

      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, in effect, reconsideration of his earlier
request for upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge.
 In his original application to the Board, he incorrectly identified his
issue and stated he was requesting a copy of his upgraded discharge.

2.  The applicant states that:

      a.  his social security number (SSN) listed on his Board proceedings
is incorrect, and that he does not know who this SSN belongs to;

      b.  his separation date is 18 October 1970, which still shows him in
the military in Hawaii until 7 November 1971;

      c.  he was credited with 2 years, 11 months, and 3 days of creditable
service and 22 days of lost time.  He questions the validity of the time
lost since he had already been discharged from the Army.

      d.  the mutilation of his ID (identification) Card was not his doing;

      e.  the section on physical training in a fatigue jacket is also not
him; and

      f.  he served more than 1 month of service in Vietnam.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation in support of his
request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR20050007318, on 6 December 2005.

2.  The 6 December 2005, Board concluded that the type of discharge
directed and the reasons for the discharge were appropriate considering all
of the facts of the case.





3.  The Board concluded that the evidence showed the applicant’s
administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable
regulations and there is no indication of procedural errors that would tend
to jeopardize his rights. The discharge proceedings were conducted in
accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the
character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall
record of military service.

4.  The Board also concluded that his service was deemed unsatisfactory in
view of his bad conduct which consisted of eight counseling sessions, nine
nonjudicial punishments, and one summary court-martial conviction.  There
also was no evidence in his records and the applicant did not submit any
evidence that showed his undesirable discharge was upgraded to an honorable
discharge.  The evidence shows that on 23 September 1971, the ADRB (Army
Discharge Review Board) reviewed his discharge and determined that he was
properly discharged, therefore, denied his appeal for an upgrade.

5.  The applicant's new argument, as stated in his letter, which was
accepted as his request for reconsideration, is that there were several
errors in the board proceedings, dated 6 December 2005.

6.  The applicant stated that his SSN was wrong on the cover letter/letter
of transmittal of his board proceedings and that the SSN did not belong to
him.       A search of his records has confirmed that the SSN belongs to
someone else; however, this error has no impact on the determination
reached by the Board.    A corrected memorandum will be prepared and
properly distributed.  This issue will not be further addressed in these
proceedings.

7.  The applicant was separated on 18 October 1970; however, he claims the
proceeding shows he was still in the military in Hawaii from 6 September
1969 to 7 November 1971.  Paragraph 3, in the ABCMR Record of Proceedings
erroneously shows, "the applicant served in Vietnam from 4 August 1969
through 5 September 1969 and in Hawaii form 6 September 1969 through
7 November 1971."

8.  Item 31 (Foreign Service), of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification
Record), shows that he served in Hawaii from 6 September 1969 to 7 November
1971.
His ADRB proceedings show that he served in Hawaii from 6 September 1969 to
17 October 1970 (1 year, 1 month, and 12 days).




9.  Army Regulation 600-200, chapter 9, in effect at the time of the
applicant's service required "posting" of permanent entries on the
qualification record to be made in ink or to be typed.  Data that was
considered temporary was "posted" in pencil.  When the applicant arrived in
Hawaii, it was estimated he would be there until 7 November 1971.  This
date was erroneously transposed to the Record of Proceedings on 6 December
2005.

10.  The board proceedings show that he was credited with 2 years,
11 months, and 3 days of net active service from 24 October 1968 to
18 October 1970 and
22 days of lost time.

11.  The applicant points out that item 22a (Statement of Service-
Creditable for Basic Pay Purposes), of his DD Form 214, shows the entry "2
11 3" (2 years, 11 months, and 3 days).  He, in effect, states this amount
of time is incorrect in view of the dates of his service.

12.  The applicant's total net service for the period 24 October 1968 to
18 October 1970 is 1 year, 11 months, and 25 days.

13.  Item 44 (Time Lost), of his DA Form 20, shows that he was absent
without leave (AWOL) from 2 to 5 May 1969 (4 days) and confined from 22 May
1969 to 8 June 1969 (18 days).

14.  On 11 March 1970, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ), for willfully and unlawfully mutilating with
intent to alter, a Military ID Card, to wit:  "scratch the year off of the
birth date" and for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  He was
advised that he could seek legal counsel before making any oral or written
communication.  At a hearing, the applicant elected not to demand trial by
court-martial and matters in defense, mitigation, and/or extenuation were
not presented.  His punishment consisted of 7 days restriction and extra
duty.  He elected not to appeal his punishment.

15.  On 24 June 1970, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for failure
to
go to his appointed place of duty, for disobeying a lawful order from a
senior noncommissioned officer, and for wrongfully appearing at physical
training formation in his fatigue jacket and without a T-shirt on 24 June
1970.  He was advised that he could seek legal counsel before making any
oral or written communication.  At a hearing, the applicant elected not to
demand trial by
court-martial and matters in defense, mitigation, and/or extenuation were
not presented.  He elected to appeal his punishment.

16.  In his appeal, he described the incidents that occurred between him
and his section leader during physical training on 24 June 1970.  His
appeal was denied. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay,
reduction to pay grade E-2, and 14 days restriction and extra duty.  On
26 June 1970, the applicant's appeal was reviewed by the Staff Judge
Advocate.  The SJA found his punishment to be legally sufficient.

17.  The applicant's records contain copies of orders that show he was
assigned to Vietnam with an estimated reporting date of 3 August 1969 and
an estimated return date of 3 September 1969 with concurrent assignment to
Hawaii.  His ADRB proceedings show he served in Vietnam from 4 August to
5 September 1969.

18.  Item 31 (Foreign Service), of his DA Form 20, shows he served in
Vietnam from 4 August 1969 to 5 September 1969 (32 days).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The arguments presented by the applicant were considered by the Board.

2.  The evidence shows that the applicant served in Hawaii from 6 September
1969 through 17 October 1970 instead of from 6 September 1969 through
7 November 1971.  This evidence was taken from item 31, of his DA Form 20,
and was entered in the applicant's Board proceedings, page 2, in the
Consideration of Evidence section, in error.

3.  The applicant's Board proceedings, dated 6 December 1970, and his
DD Form 214 show that he was credited with 2 years, 11 months, and 3 days
of net active service.  The total of the applicant's service should
correctly have been shown as, 1 year, 11 months, and 25 days.  Therefore,
he is entitled to correction of item 22a(1), 22a(3), and 22b, of his DD
Form 214, to show the entry "1 11 25" (1 year, 11 months, and 25 days).

4.  The applicant contends that the mutilation of his Military ID Card was
not his doing and that the section on physical training in a fatigue jacket
was also not him.  The applicant was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for
both incidents.  He elected not to appeal the first offense and appealed
his second offense.  His appeal was denied and his punishment was found to
be legally sufficient.
The applicant has failed to show that these infractions of rules and
regulations were not perpetrated by him and he was not punished for these
violations; therefore, no action to alter or remove these records from his
file are deemed to be necessary.
5.  The evidence shows he served in Vietnam for 1 month and 2 days.  A
record of his service is already shown in the Remarks of his DD Form 214;
therefore, no further action is necessary.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

___J ___  ___PF___  ____RCH  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to
timely file.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the
Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing the entry
"1 11 25" in item 22a(1), 22a(3), and 22b, of his DD Form 214.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
a change in his 1 month and 2 days of service in Vietnam and any action to
alter, remove or change in any way the results of Article 15 punishments
received by the applicant while he served on active duty, which are filed
in his service records.




                                  _____John T. Meixell______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060001141                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |AR20050007318                           |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061017                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19701018                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-212                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |





-----------------------
[pic]