RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	


	BOARD DATE:	  7 August 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070005885 


	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.


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Ms. Joyce A. Wright 

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Linda D. Simmons

Chairperson

Ms. Ernestine Fields

Member

Mr. Randolph J. Fleming

Member

	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, in effect, reconsideration of his earlier request for an upgrade of his general discharge, under honorable conditions, to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was in the hospital in Japan, and was legally out of the Army when he signed his discharge in April 1973. 

3.  In an additional statement, he states that he has been deemed ineligible to receive VA (Veterans Affairs) benefits related to inaccuracies of his military record accusing him of going AWOL (absent without leave) following 5 months in Vietnam.  He is a homeless Veteran without resources to care for himself.  He was shot in the leg while serving his country in Vietnam.  He was shot by his own men (which he knows was racially motivated) for requesting treatment expected by the white Soldiers regarding weapons allocation.  He was forced to carry the M60 (Machinegun-making him a vulnerable target) and march in the last place while moving from point to point with his company.  Tradition was that the new Soldier joining the unit had this position.  When new members came to the unit, he was forced to continue carrying the M60 while the newer white Soldiers carried an M16 (making them less of a target) and they also enjoyed a marching position safer within the company.

4.  The applicant states that there are a number of discrepancies that must be cleared up regarding his service record, especially with respect to his AWOL status.  The inaccuracies in his records are:  (1) the beginning date of his service; (2) information pertaining to his being wounded in action; and (3) his service in Vietnam from 1 January to 8 May 1970 (5 months later, wounded).  

5.  The applicant states that he has been homeless for the past 17 years.  He has lost some valuable documents verifying this claim (mostly notably sets of orders) because of his unstable life-style.  He has written to St. Louis, Missouri, in an effort to get his service record cleared up.

6.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) in support of his request.






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 AR20050008144 on 16 February 2006.

2.  The 16 February 2006, Board concluded that the applicant’s contentions were carefully considered and the evidence was insufficient to support granting the relief requested in his case.

3.  The Board concluded that the evidence of record confirmed the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  After consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All requirements of law and regulation were met, the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, and his discharge accurately reflected his overall record of short and undistinguished service.  

4.  The Board also concluded that the applicant’s conduct was inconsistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and the overall quality of his service was not so meritorious as to warrant a fully honorable discharge.  Therefore, there was no evidence nor did the applicant present any evidence to warrant relief beyond that already provided by the ADRB.

5.  The applicant's new argument, as stated in his letter, which was accepted as his request for reconsideration, is that there are discrepancies that must be cleared up regarding his service records, especially with respect to his AWOL status.

6.  The applicant stated that there was an inaccuracy in the beginning dates of his service.  He stated, in effect, he enlisted on 25 January 1969 to 24 January 1972, and his dates are inaccurately reflected on his DD Form 214. 

7.  A review of the applicant's DD Form 4 (Enlistment Contract-Armed Forces of the United States) confirmed that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 June 1969, for 3 years, with an established expiration of term of service (ETS) of 24 June 1972.

8.  Item 15 (Date Entered Active Duty This Period), of his DD Form 214, shows his date of entry as "25 June 1969."  

9.  The applicant stated that he was wounded in action by his own men on 8 May 1970.  He was medically evacuated to the 49th General Hospital in Long Binh and then sent to the 49th General Hospital in Japan, where he remained for several months before being flown home.   

10.  Item 40, of his DA Form 20, shows the entry, "GSW (gun shot wound)          L (Left) -leg 17May70.  Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) does not show the Purple Heart.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments) shows that he was in a patient status effective 23 May 1970, at the 249th General Hospital, located in Japan.  He was medically evacuated to the United States on 4 June 1970.  His name does not appear on the Vietnam Casualty List for a wound received as a result of hostile action on 17 May 1970. 

11.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal; the Combat Infantryman Badge; the Vietnam Service Medal, with two bronze service stars; and the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge, with Rifle. 

12.  The applicant stated that he served in Vietnam from 1 January 1970 to 8 May 1970 and was wounded 5 months later.  

13.  The applicant's records contain copies of orders that show he was assigned to Vietnam with an estimated reporting date of 11 January 1970.

14.  Item 31 (Foreign Service), of his DA Form 20, shows he served in Vietnam from 10 January 1970 to 4 June 1970 (5 months).  Item 19 (Indochina or Korea Service Since August 5, 1964), of his DD Form 214, shows an "X" in the Yes Block and the entry "10 Jan 70 – 4 June 70" (10 January 1970 to 4 June 1970).

15.  The applicant was issued an undesirable discharge on 24 April 1972, with his service characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.  On 4 June 1977, the ADRB (Army Discharge Review Board), under the DOD (Department of Defense) Discharge Review Program (Special), upgraded his discharge to general (under honorable conditions).  

16.  Item 9d (Effective Date/Year/Month/Day), of his DD Form 214, shows the entry "72 04 24" (24 April 1972).



17.  Item 32 (Signature of person being transferred or discharged), of his DD Form 214, is blank, and item 34 (Signature of officer authorized to sign), of his DD Form 214, shows a valid signature of the authorizing officer.

18.  Department of Veterans Affairs booklet, Federal Benefits for Veterans and Dependents, 2007 edition, states that honorable and general discharges qualify a veteran for most Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits.  The VA is guided by its own policies and regulations, operates independently of the military
services, and administers benefits according to those policies and regulations.  Decisions made by the VA have no force or effect on decisions made by the various branches of military services.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for reconsideration for an upgrade of his discharge characterized as general, under honorable, to honorable, was considered.  The evidence presented in the previous record of proceedings, in which denial of his request was made on 16 February 2006, was reviewed.  This review failed to reveal a basis upon which an upgrade of the applicant's discharge could be founded.

2.  There is apparently some confusion in the applicant's mind about the dates during which he was hospitalized and the date during which he was discharged.  He contends he was not AWOL because he was in the hospital; however, the evidence shows, with exception of his absence without authority which occurred on 4 January 1970, all the applicant's AWOL periods took place after his return from Vietnam, after his hospitalization, and after his restoration to duty.  It was this misconduct and his repeated periods of AWOL which enabled his application for discharge for the good of the service.

3.  The applicant contends that he was out of the Army when he signed his discharge, DD Form 214.  The evidence shows neither of the DD Forms 214 were signed by him.  The forms were signed by an appropriate authorizing officer, in accordance with regulatory procedures, each time.

4.  The previous board proceedings, and the evidence confirms, that the applicant had 452 days of lost time as shown on his DD Form 214.  It is noted that bad time he accumulated during his service had to be made good; so, each day he was AWOL had to be added to the end of his originally established ETS date, 24 June 1972.  Therefore, his original ETS date of 24 June 1972 was adjusted to make up for the 452 days he lost and his new, adjusted ETS was established for 19 September 1973 and thereby refuting his contention that he was legally out of the Army when his DD Form 214 was signed.

5.  The additional contentions the applicant made about discrepancies in his records are addressed:  

a.  His contention that the beginning date of his service was 25 January 1969 is not supported by the evidence.  The DD Form 4 in his service record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 June 1969;

b.  His contention that he served in Vietnam from 1 January to 8 May 1970 is also not supported by the evidence.  The evidence shows he arrived in Vietnam on 10 January and he departed on 4 June 1970; and

c.  His contention that he was wounded in action is not supported by the evidence.  In his application to the Board, the applicant describes a situation that is not related to an engagement with a hostile enemy, a situation that could not be included in the category of, "wounded by friendly fire" but, describes a situation that, if it occurred as he states it did, should have been investigated to determine if charges should have been lodged against the perpetrators.  All information related to his receiving a gunshot wound to the left leg appears to be correctly recorded.  The applicant has provided no documentary evidence to refute the evidence and therefore, he is not entitled to a change.

6.  Careful consideration has been given to the applicant's contention that he has been deemed ineligible to receive VA benefits related to inaccuracies of his military record accusing him of going AWOL following 5 months in Vietnam.  The applicant is advised that the Board does not upgrade discharges to enable individuals to qualify for benefits administered by the VA and/or other Federal and State agencies that provide benefits to veterans.

7.  Veterans and other claimants for VA benefits have the right to appeal decisions made by the Department of Veteran's Affairs to that agency.  The Board does not make decisions to entitle an applicant to educational, disability compensation or other benefits administered by the VA.  The VA operates independently of the military services and hence, decisions made by the Army have no force or effect on the VA.

8.  There is no evidence, and the applicant has provided none, in the available records to demonstrate that he was the victim of racial prejudice.



BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___RJF__  __EF____  _LDS___  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 AR20050008144, dated 16 February 2006.




____Linda D. Simmons_______
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070005885
SUFFIX

RECON
20060216//AR20050008144r
DATE BOARDED
20070807
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
UD
DATE OF DISCHARGE
19720424
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200, CHAP 10
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
144
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.