RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  12 April 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060014928 


	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. Gerard W. Schwartz

Acting Director

Mr. Michael L. Engle

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Curtis L. Greenway

Chairperson

Mr. Michael J. Flynn

Member

Mr. Edward E. Montgomery

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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he served two full tours in the Republic of Vietnam.  He further says that a one time event following these tours resulted in his undesirable discharge, which is not characteristic of his faithful service to his country.   

3.  The applicant provides four statements of support from friends indicating that the applicant has been a good and law abiding citizen. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice which occurred on 12 December 1973, the date of his discharge.  The application submitted in this case is dated 11 October 2006.

2.  On 14 August 1963, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States for 2 years.  He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 111.00 (Light Weapons Infantryman).  

3.  On 25 February 1965, the applicant was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  He attained the rank of private first class, pay grade E3.

4.  On 19 August 1966, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial for making a false statement and stealing currency (4 specifications).  His sentence consisted of confinement at hard labor for 3 months (suspended) and forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 3 months. 

5.  On 30 January 1969, the applicant was again honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  He attained the rank of specialist five, pay grade E5. 

6.  On 2 August 1969, the applicant was assigned for duty as an ammunition storage specialist with the 148th Ordnance Company in the Republic of Vietnam. His conduct and efficiency were rated as excellent.  

7.  On 16 September 1969, the applicant was promoted to the rank of staff sergeant, pay grade E6. 
8.  Records show that the applicant, while in the Republic of Vietnam, went absent without leave (AWOL) for 12 days from 6 to 17 February 1970.  There is no available evidence of his punishment.

9.  On 18 March 1970, the applicant was reassigned as a Section Chief, 60th Ordnance Company, in the Republic of Vietnam.   His conduct was rated as good, and his efficiency was rated as excellent.

10.  On 11 August 1970, the applicant was returned to the United States for duty at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.

11.  On 1 April 1971, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  His sentence consisted of a forfeiture of $50.00 pay and 15 days restriction to the company area. 

12.  On 18 September 1971, the applicant was assigned for duty as a Section Chief with the 571st Ordnance Company in the Republic of Vietnam.  On
1 February 1972, he was reassigned as a platoon sergeant in Company F, 50th Ordnance Company.  His conduct and efficiency ratings for his entire tour in the Republic of Vietnam were rated as excellent.  He was returned to the United States on 19 June 1972 for duty at Fort Carson, Colorado.

13.  On 28 February 1973, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for AWOL
(14 days).  The punishment included a reduction to sergeant, pay grade E5, forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 2 months (suspended), and 14 days extra duty.  His appeal was denied. 

14.  On 19 June 1973, the applicant received NJP for failing to go to his appointed place of duty and for being disrespectful in language toward a superior noncommissioned officer.  The punishment included reduction to specialist four, pay grade E4 (suspended), a forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 2 months (suspended) and 45 days extra duty. 

15.  On 20 July 1973, the applicant was convicted by civilian authorities for fraud by check.  He was sentenced to not less than 18 months and not more than
3 years imprisonment.  Probation was denied.

16.  On 22 August 1973, the applicant was notified that he was being processed for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-206.  He was informed of his right to request appointment of military counsel, to have his case heard before a board of officers, and to submit statements in his behalf.  The applicant requested consideration of his case by a board of officers and declined to appeal his civilian conviction.

17.  On 30 October 1973, a board of officers convened at Fort Carson, Colorado, and again on 31 October 1973 at the Colorado State Penitentiary, Canon City, Colorado, to hear evidence.

18.  At the hearing, the applicant testified that he was paying child support to his first wife and child and that his second wife and two children were living in South Carolina.  He stated that his military pay was mixed up in Vietnam and had been incorrect since 1968.  He stated that upon his arrival to Fort Carson he received $220.00 in July 1972; no pay in August or September 1972; $9.00 in October; and about $25.00 in the months of November and December 1972.  He said he did not receive a complete pay from the military until February 1973 and that he wrote the checks to provide for his family.  The applicant also testified that he wanted to return to the military in any job and wanted at least a suspended discharge for 6 months so he could show that he could rehabilitate himself. 

19.  On 31 October 1973, the board of officers recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 
17 November 1972, and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

20.  Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 
12 December 1973.  He had completed 9 years, 10 months, and 26 days of creditable active service and had 171 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

21.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

22.  Army Regulation 635-206, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 33 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members convicted by civil authorities would be considered for separation.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.




DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

2.  The type of discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s good post-service conduct is noted.  However, it does not sufficiently mitigate his repeated and excessive acts of indiscipline during his military service.

4.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__MJF __  __EM ___  __CLG __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that 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.




__    Curtis L. Greenway____
          CHAIRPERSON



INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060014928
SUFFIX

RECON
 
DATE BOARDED
20070412
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE
19731212
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-206. . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
144.6100
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.