RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        1 February 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060010618


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Barbara J. Ellis              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |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 reconsideration of his earlier request to
upgrade his discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he made a childish, adolescent mistake of
continuing a habit of pot smoking while he was in Vietnam.  He has
straightened out his drug problem and quit drinking in December 2003.  He
is now trying to make a life with a new partner who helps him.

3.  The applicant provides a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of
Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States); an Air Medal (second
through fourth award) citation; his Undesirable Discharge Certificate; a
letter to his parents from his commander, dated 3 December 1970; and a 5
June 2006 letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

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
AR20040010489 on 4 October 2005.

2.  The applicant provides a new argument that will be considered by the
Board.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 December 1968 at age
19.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training
and was awarded military occupational specialty 67U (CH-47 Helicopter
Repairman).  He arrived in Vietnam in June 1969.

4.  On 28 November 1969, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment
under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to
report to his place of duty and for being in an off-limits area.

5.  On 4 June 1970, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial
of being in an off-limits area and of stealing a television set from
another Soldier.  He was sentenced to be reduced to pay grade E-1, to be
restricted to the company area and normal place of duty for 60 days, and to
forfeit $94.00 pay for one month.

6.  The applicant departed Vietnam on 12 June 1970.

7.  On 27 April 1971, the applicant was convicted by the 5th District Court
of Comanche County, OK of possession of marijuana.  He was sentenced to two
years probation.

8.  In May 1971, action was initiated to separate the applicant under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-206 due to his civil conviction.  The
applicant acknowledged that he had been advised of the basis for the
action.  He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived
representation by counsel, and elected not to submit a statement in his own
behalf.

9.  On 14 June 1971, the applicant was discharged, with an undesirable,
under other than honorable conditions discharge, under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-206 after completing 2 years, 5 months, and 14 days of
creditable active service with no time lost.  His DD Form 214 shows he was
awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Air Medal, the Vietnam
Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with 1960 device, and
two overseas bars.

10.  On 7 December 1973, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the
applicant’s request for an upgrade.

11.  Army Regulation 635-206, then in effect, provided, in pertinent part,
that an enlisted member who was convicted by a civilian court of an offense
for which the authorized punishment under the UCMJ included confinement of
1 year or more was to be considered for elimination.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 governs the separation of enlisted personnel.
In pertinent part, it states an honorable discharge is a separation with
honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of
the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct
and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious
that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Where
there have been infractions of discipline, the extent thereof should be
considered, as well as the seriousness of the offense(s).  It is the
pattern of behavior and not the isolated instance which should be
considered the governing factor in determination of character of service to
be awarded.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under
honorable conditions.  It is issued to a Soldier whose military record is
satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable
discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions have been considered.  However, he was
    21 years old when he was convicted by a civilian court.  In addition,
his previous service was not without blemish.  In addition to nonjudicial
punishment on one occasion, he also had a summary court-martial conviction
for stealing from another Soldier.

2.  The applicant’s good intentions in his post-service conduct are
praiseworthy; however, they do not negate the fact the characterization of
his service as under other than honorable conditions appears to have been
an appropriate characterization considering his overall service.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__bje___  __lds___  __mjf___  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 to amend the decision of
the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20040010489 dated 4 October 2005.




                                  __Barbara J. Ellis____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060010618                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070201                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19710614                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-206                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |A61.00                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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