RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  22 March 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060011276 


	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.


	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 DD Form 214 (Report of Separation From Active Duty) be corrected to show he completed Welding School, and that he had assignments in Alaska and Vietnam.

2.  The applicant states information was omitted from his DD Form 214 and he was "rob[bed] out of a welding career."

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice which occurred on 16 February 1972.  The application submitted in this case is dated 12 July 2006.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant enlisted in Regular Army for 3 years on 20 January 1967.  He reenlisted for 4 years on 22 February 1968.  On 14 August 1968, he completed the 11-week Welding School at the US Army Ordnance Center and School, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.

4.  The applicant's record shows that he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on at least four occasions.  On 9 October 1967, he made a false statement claiming he was authorized to dispatch a vehicle; on 9 March 1969, he conducted himself in a disorderly manner; on 10 June 1969, he was asleep on guard duty in Vietnam; and on 11 June 1970, he was speeding on post.

5.  The applicant's record shows a history of absence without leave (AWOL).  He had a total of 468 days of lost time from 24 July through 16 September 1970, 

from 26-27 September 1970, 13 October 1970 through 21 March 1971, from 13-18 April 1971, from 6 May through 14 December 1971, and from 27 December 1971 through 9 January 1972.

6.  On or about 29 September 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for several periods of AWOL.  Because of his frequent and lengthy periods of AWOL, he was separated on temporary records; his records are incomplete and do not show all of his assignments, schools, and duty stations.  Thus the record is void of facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army.  However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 that identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge.  It shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In connection with such a discharge, the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge.  Procedurally, the applicant was required to consult with defense counsel and to voluntarily, and in writing, request separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In doing so, the applicant would have admitted guilt to the stipulated or lesser included offenses under the UCMJ.

7.  On 16 February 1972, the applicant was discharged on temporary records.  He was issued an undesirable discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had 468 days of lost time due to AWOL.  His DD Form 214 does not contain any information on schools or foreign service.

8.  AR 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that 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 the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.  At the time of the applicant’s separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.

9.  The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade.  The ADRB, after considering his case on 2 August 1977 under the Department of Defense Special Discharge Review Program, voted to upgrade his discharge to General, under honorable conditions.  On 9 May 1978, the ADRB voted not to affirm the general discharge under uniform standards.

10.  AR 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents that must be prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge, release from active duty service, or control of the Active Army.  It establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  The regulation then in effect provided that formal in-service (full-time attendance) training courses successfully completed during the period of service covered by the DD Form 214 shall be listed in Block 27 (Remarks).  The 1972 regulation did not specify how the course was to be listed, but the current regulation requires title, length in weeks, and year completed.  This information is to assist the Soldier in job placement and counseling; therefore, training courses for combat skills are not listed.  

11.  AR 635-5, then in effect, also that service in Indochina or Korea be annotated by checking the "Yes" box in Block 19 (Indochina or Korea Service).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's record is incomplete.  Although it can be proved he served in Vietnam and in Alaska, the inclusive dates of those assignments cannot be determined.  It is, therefore, not possible to annotate the length of his foreign service on his DD Form 214.  However, Block 19 should be annotated with a check mark in the "Yes" box.

2.  The applicant's record contains a diploma from the US Army Ordnance Center and School attesting to his successful completion of an 11-week course in welding.  In accordance with AR 635-5, this information should be entered in Block 27 as "WELDING – 11 WEEKS – 1968."

3.  The applicant went AWOL frequently and for lengthy periods of time.  Because of his misconduct, his records were not available when he returned to military control and underwent the discharge process.  That he was separated on a temporary record and his DD Form 214 was incomplete is completely of his own doing.

4.  The applicant was not "rob[bed] out of a welding career."  He was a trained welder.  He could have applied for a welding job, demonstrated the skill the Army taught him, and been hired.  He apparently did not choose to do that, choosing instead to blame his DD Form 214 for the incompleteness which he caused.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 16 February 1972; therefore, the time for 

the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 15 February 1975.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations; however, based on the available evidence, it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

__lds___  __jtm___  __rsv___  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for 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:  in Block 19, that he performed duty in Indochina or Korea [by checking the "Yes" box]; and in Block 27, that he completed welding by entering "WELDING – 11 WEEKS – 1968."



						Linda D. Simmons
______________________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060011276
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20070322
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
100.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.