RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        14 NOVEMBER 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060002056


      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. Gale J. Thomas                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Curtis Greenway               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas Ray                    |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Peguine Taylor                |     |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 that his records be corrected by upgrading his
discharge and by awarding him medals he should have received.  He also
requests that his records be unsealed.

2.  The applicant states in effect, that his discharge was the result of
his getting
into it with his captain.  He has a statement attesting to the fact that
his records are sealed and he would like them unsealed.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his September 1964 and July 1967
DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or
Discharge), a copy of his March 1966 DD form 215 (Correction to DD Form
214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge),
and a notarized statement attesting to his records being sealed, in support
of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant initially enlisted in the Army National Guard and was
ordered to active duty for training on 12 March 1964 and was honorably
released from active duty on 11 September 1964.  He enlisted in the Regular
Army on 7 March 1966, for a period of 3 years.

2.  Special Court-Martial Order Number 65, Headquarters, 4th Battalion,
30th Infantry, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, dated 26 August 1966, shows the
applicant was convicted by a special court-martial, pursuant to his pleas,
of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 2 August 1966 to 13 August 1966.
He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 4 months, a forfeiture of
$86.00 per month for 6 months, and reduction to Private E-1.

3.  On 26 August 1966, Headquarters, 4th Battalion, 30th Infantry, Fort
Sill, approved only so much of the sentence to confinement at hard labor
for 4 months, forfeiture of $60.00 per month for 6 months, and reduction to
Private
E-1.  However, the execution of that portion thereof adjudging confinement
at hard labor for 4 months was suspended for six months, at which time,
unless the suspension was sooner vacated, the suspended portion of the
sentence would be remitted without further action.




4.  Special Court-Martial Order Number 74, Headquarters, 4th Battalion,
30th Infantry, Fort Sill, dated 16 September 1966, directed that so much of
the order published in Special Court-Martial Order Number 65, dated 26
August 1966, pertaining to the  execution of the approved sentence to
confinement at hard labor for 4 months was duly executed.  The applicant
was confined at the Fort Sill Post Stockade.

5.  On 6 December 1966, the applicant was convicted, by a general court-
martial, pursuant to his pleas, of being AWOL from 10 September 1966 to 15
September 1966, two specifications of forgery, and of escaping lawful
confinement from the post stockade.  He was sentenced to be dishonorably
discharged from the service, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and to
be confined at hard labor for 2 years.  The sentence was approved on 22
December 1966.

6.  The United States Army Board of Review affirmed the findings and
sentence on 9 March 1967.  However, on the basis of the entire record, the
findings of guilty and only so much of the sentence as provided for a
dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances for 1 year,
and confinement at hard labor for 1 year were approved.  The sentence was
modified accordingly.

7.  On 4 April 1967, the applicant petitioned the United States Court of
Military Appeals, for a grant of review of the decision by the United
States Army Board of Review.  His petition was denied on 12 June 1967.

8.  General Court-Martial Order Number 515, Headquarters Fort Leavenworth,
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, dated 3 July 1967, directed the execution of the
dishonorable discharge.

9.  The applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows in
item 41 (Awards and Decorations) that the applicant was awarded the
National Defense Service Medal.

10.  On 17 July 1967, the applicant was dishonorably discharged under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-204.  His DD Form 214 indicates he had
5 months and 2 days of creditable service and 983 days of lost time.

11.  On 11 August 1967, the Army Clemency and Parole Board upgraded the
applicant's Dishonorable Discharge to a Bad Conduct Discharge.  The
applicant was issued a new DD Form 214 and DD Form 259A (Bad Conduct
Discharge
Certificate) substituted for the dishonorable discharge previously adjudged
in his case.  The substitution was authorized per letter from the
Department of the Army, Office of the Adjutant General, dated 19 August
1967.
12.  The applicant provides a notarized statement, from his previous
commander, attesting to the fact that his records from 1968 to 1970 were
sealed due to security reason.  There is no evidence in the applicant's
records that show he was on active duty from 1968 to 1970.

13.  Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Military Awards) provides that the National
Defense Service Medal (NDSM) is awarded for honorable active service for
any period between 27 July 1950 through 27 July 1954, 1 January 1961
through 14 August 1974, inclusive.

14.  Army Regulation 635-204, in effect at the time, provided in pertinent
part, that enlisted personnel would be discharged with a bad conduct
discharge pursuant to an approved sentence of a general or special court-
martial imposing a bad conduct discharge.

15.  Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, the statutory authority
under which this Board operates, notes, in pertinent part, that with
respect to records of courts-martial action to correct a military record
may extend only to action on the sentence of a court-martial for purposes
of clemency.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Evidence shows the applicant was awarded the National Defense Service
Medal and his records should be corrected to reflect this award.  The
applicant is not entitled to any additional awards.

2.  The applicant's separation was accomplished in compliance with
applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would
tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the
reasons therefore were appropriate considering the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows his character of discharge as "under
conditions other than honorable" instead of a bad conduct discharge.  This
error by the Army in completing the DD Form 214 effectively worked to
upgrade the applicant's discharge from a punitive bad conduct discharge to
an under other than honorable conditions administrative discharge.

4.  There is no evidence in the available records that shows the
applicant's records were ever sealed, nor are there records to substantiate
that he was on active duty during the 1968 to 1970 time frame, attested to
by the notarized statement he provided.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

___CG __  __TR ___  ___PT __  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.  As a result, the Board
recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual
concerned be corrected by showing he was awarded the National Defense
Service Medal.

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
upgrading his discharge and unsealing his records.




                                  _____Curtis Greenway________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060002056                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061114                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |PARTIAL GRANT                           |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |107.00                                  |
|2.                      |110.00                                  |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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