RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            05 December 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20060007407


      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             |
|     |Mr. Jessie B. Strickland          |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Linda Simmons                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick McGann                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Donald Steenfott              |     |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 the undesirable discharge of her deceased
husband, a former service member (FSM), be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states that her husband’s discharge should be upgraded to
honorable because of the stress and nightmares he suffered after leaving
Vietnam, which was the cause of his going absent without leave (AWOL).  She
goes on to state that he was too sick from what he saw as a medic and
exposure to Agent Orange to pursue the change himself.  She further states
that the FSM tried to make it day to day without bothering the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA) because a VA doctor almost killed him by
puncturing a lung in 1997.  She also states that the FSM’s brother was just
a cook and got his discharge changed and he did not see what the FSM saw in
Vietnam.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a VA Rating Decision and a copy of the
FSM’s death certificate.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The FSM was inducted in Abilene, Texas, on 2 January 1968.  He
completed his basic combat training after being recycled at Fort Polk,
Louisiana and was transferred to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to undergo his
training as a cook’s helper.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-3 on 16
September 1968.

2.  He was transferred to Germany on 10 November 1968, where he was
assigned as a cook’s helper in a medical company.

3.  On 7 May 1969, he was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate
reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 8 May 1969 for a period of 6 years and
assignment to Vietnam.  He departed Germany on 9 May 1969 for assignment to
Vietnam.

4.  He arrived in Vietnam on 28 June 1969 and was assigned as a cook in a
maintenance battalion.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on
5 November 1969 and departed Vietnam on 24 November 1970, after having
served 18 months in Vietnam.  He was transferred to Fort Sill, Oklahoma,
for duty as a first cook.  He arrived at Fort Sill on 28 December 1970.

5.  On 18 February 1971, he was honorably discharged for the purpose of
immediate reenlistment.  On 19 February 1971, he again reenlisted for a
period of 6 years and assignment to Vietnam.
6.  On 20 April 1971, the FSM went AWOL and remained absent until he was
apprehended by civil authorities in New Mexico on 21 August 1971 and was
returned to military control at Fort Bliss, Texas, where charges were
preferred against him.

7.  On 1 October 1971, he was convicted, pursuant to his plea, by a special
court-martial at Fort Bliss of being AWOL from 20 April to 21 August 1971.
No punishment was adjudged.

8.  For reasons not explained in the available records, on 31January 1972,
he was transferred to Kirchgoens, Germany and was assigned as a first cook
of a signal company.  He departed on ordinary leave with a return date of
30 May 1972 and failed to return.  He was reported as being AWOL effective
31 May 1972.

9.  He remained absent in desertion status until he was apprehended by
Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) officials in Paragold, Arkansas on 6
October 1975 and was returned to military control at Fort Sill on 8 October
1975, where charges were preferred against him.

10.  On 16 October 1975, after consulting with defense counsel, the FSM
submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service, under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by
court-martial.  In his request he indicated that he understood the charges
that had been preferred against him, that he was making the request of his
own free will, without coercion from anyone and that he was aware of the
implications attached to his request.  He also admitted that he was guilty
of the charges against him or of lesser included offenses which authorized
the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He acknowledged
that he understood that he could receive a discharge under other than
honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of all benefits as a
result of such a discharge.  He also elected not to submit a statement in
his own behalf.

11.  The appropriate authority (a brigadier general) approved his request
on 29 October 1975 and directed that he be furnished an Undesirable
Discharge Certificate.

12.  Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions
on 3 November 1975, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 2 months and
25 days of active service on his current enlistment for a total of 3 years,
4 months, and 10 days of total active service and had 1,632 days of lost
time due to AWOL and confinement.  His awards included the National Defense
Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the
Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with “1960” Device, the Good Conduct
Medal (First Award), and the Bronze Star Medal.

13.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that the FSM
ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his
discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the 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 at
any time after charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge
for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A condition
of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit
guilt to the charges against them or of a lesser included offense which
authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and
they must indicate that they have been briefed and understand the
consequences of such a request as well as the discharge they might receive.
 A discharge under other than honorable conditions was then and still is
normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The FSM's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with
applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would
tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore
were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board; however, they
are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to the
FSM’s extensive absence during the period of his last enlistment.  He was
serving as a noncommissioned officer at the time and his service during the
period in question simply does not rise to the level of a discharge under
honorable conditions.

4.  The applicant’s contention that the FSM suffered from his experiences
as a medic in Vietnam have been noted and found to be without merit.  At no
time during his service did the FSM ever serve as a medic.  He was trained
as a cook and served all of his time in that capacity.

5.  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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__LS____  __PM___  __DS ___  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.





                                  _____Linda Simmons_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060007407                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061205                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(UD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1975/11/03                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200/CH10 . . . . .                |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |GD OF SVC                               |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES                  |689/A70.00                              |
|1.144.7000              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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