IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	   11 February 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130008837 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant, the daughter of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests correction of the FSM's DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to:

	a.  upgrade his characterization of service from under conditions other than honorable to honorable.

	b.  in effect, correct his separation program number (SPN) of "28B" (Unfitness, frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civilian and military authorities) to show SPN of "480" (Personality Disorder).

	c.  add all the awards, decorations, and badges to which he is entitled.

2.  The applicant states the FSM's discharge should be upgraded based on Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations Discharge Unfitness and Unsuitability).

	a.  An Army psychiatrist, captain (CPT) MBS, recommended the FSM be separated due to his diagnosis of chronic personality disorder, currently known today as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  

	b.  On 1 January 1991, his attending physician, Dr. DO, wrote a statement wherein he indicated the FSM had a severe mental/nervous impairment and was dealing with stress and cancer.

	c.  The Army misdiagnosed the FSM with chronic personality disorder.  He should have been diagnosed with PTSD.  The FSM was 20 years old at the time of his discharge/diagnosis.  

	d.  The FSM completed a DD Form 293 (Application for Review of Discharge or Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 30 May 1968, in an attempt to have his discharge overturned.  He stated he was discharged on 
30 April 1968, 9 months past his expiration term of service (ETS) date of 
3 August 1967.  He was discharged after his ETS as a result of a court-martial and given an under conditions other than honorable characterization of service.  The Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) sent several letters to the FSM which he never received.

3.  The applicant provides:

* DD Form 214
* Birth certificate
* Identification card
* Certificate of Death
* 3 letters, dated 3 September 2011, 22 March 2013, and 27 April 2013
* Special Orders (SO) Number 224, dated 24 September 1964
* SO Number 122, dated 21 May 1965
* SO Number 151, dated 24 June 1965
* SO Number 86, dated 10 May 1966
* SO Number 81, dated 11 April 1967
* Summary Court-Martial Order Number 16, dated 30 November 1966
* Special Court-Martial Order Number 858, dated 13 October 1967
* Special Court-Martial Order Number 331, dated 21 March 1968
* Memorandum, undated
* Statement, undated
* SO Number 105, dated 29 April 1968
* Standard Form (SF) 89 (Report of Medical History), dated 28 March 1968
* SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 28 March 1968
* DA Form 3082-R (Statement of Medical Condition), dated 29 April 1968
* DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record)
* DD Form 293, dated 30 May 1968
* 4 pages of ADRB correspondence, dated 3 July - 5 November 1968
* Attending Physician Statement, dated 19 January 1991
* 2 letters from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), dated 14 January 1992


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The FSM enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 August 1964 for a period of 3 years and held military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman). The highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty was private first class (PFC)/E-3.

3.  His DA Form 20 shows:

	a.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training at Fort Polk, LA from 12 August 1964 to on or about 20 December 1964.

	b.  He was assigned to Hawaii from 21 December 1964 to 4 January 1966 and served with Company A, 2nd Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, from 
26 December 1964 to 4 January 1966.

	c.  He was assigned to Vietnam from 5 January 1966 to 14 September 1966 and served with Company A, 2nd Battalion, 35th Infantry Regiment from 
7 January 1966 to 11 September 1966.

	d.  He was assigned to Fort Hood, TX from on or about 2 November 1966 to 30 April 1968 and served with:

		(1)  Company C, 1st Battalion, 52nd Infantry Regiment, 1st Armored Division from 1 November 1966 to 5 May 1967.  During this period he had the following periods of lost time for:

* Absent without leave (AWOL) on 1 November 1966 (1 day)
* AWOL on 6 February 1967 (1 day)
* AWOL from 14-16 April 1967 (3 days)
* AWOL from 5 May 1967 to 10 October 1967 (150 days)

		(2)  the Special Processing Detachment, U.S. Army Garrison Troops from 7 October 1967 to 30 April 1968.  During this period he had the following periods of lost time for:

* Confined from 2-14 October 1967 (13 days)
* AWOL from 31 October 1967 to 7 March 1968 (129 days)
* Confined from 8 March 1968 to 29 April 1968 (53 days)

4.  Special Orders (SO) Number 122, issued by Headquarters, 25th Infantry Division, Hawaii, on 21 May 1965 awarded him the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Pistol Bar (.45 Caliber).

5.  His record contains two DA Forms 2627 (Summarized Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 3 July 1965 and 3 November 1965, while he was assigned to Hawaii.  These forms show: 

* he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for being absent from his place of duty on 1 July 1965  
* he accepted NJP for being absent from his place of duty on 3 November 1965

6.  His record contains a DA Form 2627-1 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 3 November 1966 which shows, while assigned to Fort Hood, TX, he accepted NJP for being AWOL from 1-2 November 1966.  

7.  His record contains a memorandum from his company commander, dated 
30 November 1966, wherein his commander recommended he be barred from reenlistment and indicated the FSM had been provided with a copy of the letter and did not wish to make a statement.

	a.  His commander stated the FSM did not meet the minimum standards of conduct required of a career Soldier.  Since his assignment to the company, on 20 October 1966, he had been a constant problem to his chain of command and his presence was detrimental to the organization.  His commander also stated that he continually complained that no one understood his problems and was, therefore, treated unfairly.  His commander added that the quality of his work was very poor and completely unsatisfactory unless he was under constant and close supervision.  Additionally, he received NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ on two occasions in November 1966, once for misconduct and once for a failure to repair.

	b.  On 12 December 1966, after being routed through the chain of command, the bar to reenlistment was approved.

8.  Summary Court-Martial Order Number 16, issued by 1st Battalion, 52nd Infantry, 1st Armored Division, Fort Hood, TX, on 30 November 1966 shows the FSM was arraigned and tried on 10 November 1966 for failing to be at his appointed place of duty on 17 November 1966.  He was convicted pursuant to his plea of guilty and sentenced to a reduction in grade to private E-2 and forfeiture of $25.00.  On 30 November 1966, the sentence was approved and ordered executed.

9.  SO Number 81, issued by 1st Armored Division, Old Ironsides, Fort Hood, TX, dated 11 April 1967 awarded him the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14).

10.  Special Court-Martial Order Number 858, issued by U.S. Army Garrison Troops, Fort Hood, TX, on 13 October 1967 shows the FSM was arraigned and tried on 21 September 1967 for being AWOL from 14-17 April 1967 and from 
5 May 1967 to 1 October 1967.  He was convicted pursuant to his pleas of guilty and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and forfeiture of $59.00 pay per month for 6 months.  The sentence was adjudged, and ordered executed on 13 October 1967 with the exception of the portion of the sentence adjudging confinement for 6 months, which was suspended for 6 months, at which time, unless the suspension was sooner vacated, the suspended portion of the sentence would be remitted without further action, or it would be remitted effective upon the FSM's date of discharge, whichever date occurred sooner.

11.  Special Court-Martial Order Number 331, issued by U.S. Army Garrison Troops, Fort Hood, TX, on 21 March 1968 shows the FSM was arraigned and tried on 11 March 1968 for being AWOL from 31 October 1967 to 8 March 1968. He was convicted pursuant to his plea of guilty and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 4 months and forfeiture of $60.00 pay per month for 4 months.  The sentence was adjudged, approved and ordered to be dully executed on 
21 March 1968.

12.  There is no evidence of record and the applicant did not provide any evidence that shows the FSM:

* Was issued a permanent physical profile that prevented him from completing his duties
* Was diagnosed with a medical ailment, injury, or disease that prevented him from performing his duties
* Suffered an injury or disease that warranted his entry into the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES)

13.  His record does not contain a full separation packet; however, it does contain an undated memorandum from the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA), Headquarters III Corps and Fort Hood, Fort Hood, TX to the Commanding General (CG) wherein the SJA stated:

	a.  his record contained the following disciplinary actions:

		(1)  Two special courts-martial:

* dated 13 October 1967 for two specifications of AWOL totaling 154 days
* dated 21 March 1968 for one specification of AWOL totaling 130 days

		(2)  NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, dated 
3 November 1966, for AWOL; and

		(3)  Civilian offenses:  on 18 April 1967, the FSM stated that in early May 1967 he was charged with simple assault in Belton, TX.  However, the charges were later dropped.

	b.  On 3 March 1967, he was evaluated by CPT MBS, a psychiatrist at the Mental Hygiene Consultation Service, who stated the FSM "apparently has had a chronic personality problem with some degree of impulsiveness and rather violent rage reactions usually, if not always, occurring off-duty and perhaps more frequently when he has been drinking… It [was CPT MBS's] impression that little change can be expected in this individual's underlying personality structure and that he is an individual in whom control over aggressive impulses is at times a problem but insomuch as this has been kept under control in his performance of duty, it would be [CPT MBS's] impression that he is assisted by the application of external restraints and controls."

	c.  On 22 March 1968, he was evaluated by CPT JRC, a psychiatrist at the Mental Hygiene Consultation Service, who stated that the FSM states "that he is now six months over his ETS [to make up the lost time resulting from his AWOLs and courts-martial] and that he has no intention of returning to duty… He displays an inability to respond to stress, appears resentful of authority, exercises poor judgment in his personal affairs, and has no motivation to return to duty."

	d.  On 8 April 1968, in a statement made to Sergeant (SGT) EDV, the FSM stated "No [I do not wish more rehabilitation]… Yes [I do want a discharge realizing it may be an undesirable discharge], because I am 9 mon[ths] over my ETS, I have lost my wife and kids because of the Army.  I can make more money on the outside.  And I think that Fort Hood is the worst place that I have ever been in my life, and so does everyone else."

	e.  On 18 April 1968, the FSM was interviewed by Mr. R, an attorney advisor from the Office of the SJA.  During the interview the FSM stated that since his return from Vietnam he had been AWOL on four separate occasions.  The first time, in November 1966, we went AWOL because his wife left him and took his two children with her to Chicago, IL.  He went AWOL to get his children and bring them back to Texas to live with their grandparents.  The others three AWOLs were for the purpose of earning money to support his children and getting his affairs in order.  He also stated that all of his troubles started when his wife left him; however, he planned to start divorce proceedings against his wife and get full legal custody of his children.  He further stated that he wanted to remain in the Army.

		(1) Mr. R asked him why he told CPT JRC and SGT EDV that he had no intention of returning to duty and wanted a discharge.  The FSM stated that after speaking with them he thought about the matter and decided it would be in his best interest to stay in the Army so that he could be eligible for all the veterans' benefits when he was released or discharged.

		(2) The FSM stated he had been fully informed of his rights with regard to board proceedings and the effects of an undesirable discharge by CPT AWD, Judge Advocate General's Corps Officer, of the Office of the SJA, on 10 April 1968.  He was again informed of his rights and the effects of an undesirable discharge by Mr. R.  The FSM stated he understood his rights and voluntarily waived them.

	f.  The SJA stated that in view of his past record and the conclusions of two Army psychiatrists, the SJA believed that returning the FSM to duty would probably result in a conviction by general court-martial, dishonorable discharge, and long confinement.  Therefore, the SJA recommended/concurred with separating the FSM.  He further stated that all requirements imposed by Army Regulation 635-212 had been fulfilled, and the evidence concerning the FSM's conduct during his current term of service was sufficient to warrant separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 with an undesirable discharge.

14.  On 24 April 1968, the separation authority approved the FSM’s discharge and directed that the FSM be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  Accordingly, on 30 April 1968, the FSM was discharged from the Army.

15.  His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged in accordance with Army Regulation 635-212, he received the SPN code of 28B, and the characterization of service of under conditions other than honorable.  This form also confirms he completed a total of 2 years, 9 months, and 13 days of creditable active military service.  Additionally, he had 350 days of lost time and he was:

	a.  credited with 1 year, 8 months, and 24 day of foreign service in the 
U.S. Army Pacific.

	b.  awarded or authorized the:

* Vietnam Service Medal with 1 bronze service star
* Combat Infantryman Badge
* Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar

16.  On 30 May 1968, he applied to the ADRB and requested his under conditions other than honorable discharge be upgraded to honorable.

	a.  The ADRB sent him a letter, dated 23 September 1968, informing him that a hearing to review his case had been scheduled for 21 October 1968.  The ADRB requested that he place a check mark in the appropriate box to indicate that he would be present at the hearing, he could not be present at the hearing and desired that his case be reviewed without counsel, or that he could not be present at the hearing and desired his case be presented to the board by counsel.  The letter also informed him that no expense in connection with a board appearance of himself, witnesses, or counsel would be borne by the Government.  He signed and returned this letter and checked a box indicating that he could not be present at the hearing and desired his case be presented to the board by counsel.

	b.  The ADRB sent him a letter, dated 7 October 1968, wherein the ADRB stated that he had communicated to the board that he could not be present at the hearing and desired his case be presented to the board by counsel.  The letter informed him that he had the legal right to be represented but the choice of a counsel was his responsibility.

	c.  The ADRB sent him a letter, dated 18 October 1968, directing his attention to the ADRB's letter, dated 7 October 1968, to which no reply was received.  The ADRB informed him that his case would be held until 1 November 1968.

	d.  His record contains a DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), dated 
5 November 1968, which shows the ADRB returned the FSM's records/closed his case without action because he failed to respond to the correspondence, dated 
7 October 1968 and 18 October 1968.

17.  There is no indication he reapplied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

18.  The applicant provided an attending physician's statement (Agent Orange Veterans Payment Program), dated 19 January 1991, wherein the physician indicated that the FSM had terminal cancer.  He further stated that the impact of stress on his daily activities was severe and he was only able to engage in limited stress situations and limited interpersonal relationships.  

19.  The applicant provided a letter from the FSM's brother, dated 3 September 2011, which stated, in effect, that the FSM's conduct and efficiency ratings were excellent before he went to Vietnam, and after he returned they were listed as unknown, fair, or unsatisfactory.  This suggests that the FSM had been mentally destabilized and was suffering from PTSD.  The FSM was fine when he left Hawaii for Vietnam but he was damaged when he returned.

20.  The applicant provided a letter from the FSM's former spouse, dated 
22 March 2013, wherein she stated that she and the FSM were happily married before he went to Vietnam.  However, when he returned he was a different person.  He would leave home in the morning but he would not go to work.  He slept with a knife under his pillow.  Many nights he woke her and pulled his knife on her because he thought he was in Vietnam fighting the enemy.  Later, he would come to his senses, apologize to her, tell her he loved her, and that he did not want to hurt her or their children.  His commander came out to their home and told her the FSM was shell shocked.  His commander also told her to call her parents and tell them to come and get the children; she followed his advice.

21.  The applicant provided a self-authored statement, dated 27 April 2013, wherein she stated she would like the ABCMR to consider the fact that her father suffered from "PTSD which is now called a preexisting Personality Disorder by the U.S. Military Forces Doctors."  The FSM was medically diagnosed with a personality disorder by CPT MBS, an Army practicing psychiatrist.  In the 1960's black men were subject to a lot of discriminatory practices in the Army, as evident in the FSM's statement in a letter to his psychiatrist, wherein he stated, "I think that Fort Hood is the worst place that I have ever been in my life, and so does everyone else."  When the FSM made this statement "everyone else" he was referring to other black Soldiers.  The FSM told her about his time at 
Fort Hood, TX.  He was there when Martin Luther King was assassinated, and during this time everyone felt the anxiety associated with the assassination. 

22.  The applicant provided an SF 89, dated 28 March 1968, which shows the FSM reported he was in good health and had no medical problems.

23.  The applicant provided an SF 88, dated 28 March 1968 showing the FSM had a psychiatric evaluation on 22 March 1968 and was qualified for separation.  Additionally, his physical profile indicators all contained 1 marks indicating that he did not have a psychiatric profile.

24.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards), paragraph 2-13 contains the regulatory guidance on the Vietnam Service Medal and states a bronze service star is authorized with this award for each Vietnam campaign a member is credited with participating in.  Appendix B shows that during his service in Vietnam, participation credit was awarded for the following two campaigns:

* Vietnam Counteroffensive (25 December 1965 - 30 June 1966)
* Vietnam Counteroffensive, Phase II (1 July 1966 - 31 May 1967

25.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960) was awarded by the Government of Vietnam to all members of the Armed Forces of the United States for qualifying service in Vietnam during the period 1 March 1961 through 28 March 1973.  Qualifying service included assignment in Vietnam for 6 months or more.  

26.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists the awards received by units serving in Vietnam.  This pamphlet shows 2d Battalion, 35th Infantry Regiment was cited for award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation for the period of 1 January 1966 through 1 August 1966 by Department of the Army General Orders Number (DAGO) 48, dated 1971.

27.  Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), Section 972 (Members: effect of time lost) states enlisted members are required to make up time lost.  An enlisted member of an armed force who deserts; is absent from his organization, station, or duty for more than one day without proper authority, as determined by competent authority (AWOL); is confined by military or civilian authorities for more than one day in connection with a trial, whether before, during, or after the trial; or is unable for more than one day, as determined by competent authority, to perform his duties because of intemperate use of drugs or alcoholic liquor, or because of disease or injury resulting from his misconduct; is liable, after his return to full duty, to serve for a period that, when added to the period that he served before his absence from duty, amounts to the term for which he was enlisted or inducted. 

28.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPN to be entered on the DD Form 214.  The regulation in effect at the time of the applicant’s discharge stipulated that SPN 28B was the appropriate code to assign Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-212 by reason of unfitness (frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities).

29.  Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability. Section I of this regulation states that: an individual is subject to separation under the provisions of this regulation when one or more of the following conditions existed

	a.  Soldiers would be separated for unfitness for frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, sexual perversion, drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit forming drugs or marijuana, an established pattern of shirking, an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts, and/or an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to contribute adequate support to dependents or failure to comply with orders, decrees, or judgments of a civil court concerning support of dependents.  This regulation also prescribed that an undesirable discharge was normally issued unless the particular circumstances warranted a general or an honorable discharge.

	b.  Soldiers would be separated for unsuitability for inaptitude, apathy, alcoholism, enuresis, and/or character and behavior disorders.  As determined by medical authority, character and behavior disorders and disorders of intelligence, except for combat exhaustion and other acute situational maladjustments.  Discharges normally should not be accomplished for combat exhaustion and other acute situational maladjustments per se, but they may be accomplished for more basic underlying disorders of which the transient state is a manifestation.  When separation for unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based on the individual's entire record.  

30.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’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.

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member'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.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, 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 evidence of record shows the FSM displayed a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by his numerous instance of NJP, three court-martial convictions, and a repeated pattern of AWOL.  Accordingly, his chain of command initiated elimination action against him.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of service is commensurate with his overall record of military service.  

2.  The applicant's argument that, in effect, the FSM's behavior and performance were excellent before he went to Vietnam and that his behavior problems were the result of undiagnosed PTSD after his return from Vietnam lacks merit.  The evidence of record shows the FSM served in Vietnam from 5 January 1966 to 
14 September 1966.  He received two Article 15s (1 July 1965 and 3 November 1965) prior to his departure for Vietnam.  Both instances of NJP involved him being absent from his place of duty.  These NJPs, which occurred prior to his Vietnam service, were the start of his long history of misconduct.

3.  The applicant's argument that the FSM's characterization of service should be upgraded because his PTSD was misdiagnosed as a personality disorder lacks merit.  

	a.  First, it should be noted that Soldiers were not diagnosed with PTSD at the time of the FSM's service.  The term and diagnosis of PTSD is a modern diagnosis/medical term and would not have been applicable to the FSM at the time of his discharge.  Nevertheless, the issue at hand is whether or not he was diagnosed with a personality disorder and if so, did the condition merit his discharge.

	b.  The FSM's records do not contain and the applicant has not provided any medical records from his military record to show he was diagnosed with a personality disorder.  However, a document from the SJA quoted one of his psychiatrist's as stating the FSM "apparently has had a chronic personality problem…"  However, the psychiatrist making the statement that the FSM had a personality problem is not the same as the psychiatrist officially diagnosing him with a personality disorder.  Additionally, the SF 88 provided by the applicant shows the FSM was considered fully qualified and did not list any underlying medical conditions.

4.  The applicant's argument that the FSM was unfairly held beyond his ETS and that if he had been discharged upon his ETS date he would have been honorably discharged lacks merit.

	a.  The FSM enlisted on August 1964 for a period of 3 years; therefore, his ETS would have been in August of 1967.  However, at the time his ETS should have occurred he was AWOL (from 5 May 1967 to 10 October 1967 (150 days)). 
Additionally, he had already received one court-martial and upon his return from AWOL he received another court-martial for his extended period/periods of AWOL.  As such, he would not have received an honorable discharge.

	b.  Furthermore, the law requires Soldiers to make up any lost time due to AWOL or confinement.  The time they missed gets tacked on after their normal ETS date.  Keeping him beyond his normal ETS date was not a punishment or a form of harsh unjust treatment; it was a requirement of Federal law.

5.  The FSM was discharged, as indicated by his SPN of "28B," for unfitness due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civilian and military authorities.  The FSM received numerous instances of NJP for failure to repair, failure to report, and AWOL.  He was convicted by three courts-martial for failures to repair/report and numerous counts of AWOL.  His record shows he accumulated 350 days of lost time due to confinement or AWOL.  This clearly fits the criteria for a discharge for unfitness due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civilian and military authorities.  As such, the SPN code on his DD Form 214 was correctly listed.

6.  The reason for his discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable.  Further, the quality of his service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance expected of Army personnel; therefore, he is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge.

7.  SO awarded him the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Pistol Bar (.45 Caliber); therefore, he is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to add this Badge.

8.  The evidence of record shows the FSM participated in two campaigns during his Vietnam service; therefore, he is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to show two bronze service stars affixed to his previously-awarded Vietnam Service Medal.

9.  The FSM served in Vietnam for a qualifying period of time; therefore, he is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to add the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960).

10.  GO awarded the FSM's unit the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation during the period of his service.  Therefore, he is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to add this unit award.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

____X____  ___X_____  ___X_____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

* deleting the Vietnam Service Medal with one bronze service star from his DD Form 214
* adding the following awards to his DD Form 214 –

* Vietnam Service Medal with two bronze service stars
* Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960)
* Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation
* Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Pistol Bar (.45 Caliber)

2.  The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so 

much of the application that pertains to upgrading his discharge and changing his SPN code.



      ____________X_____________
                  CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130008837



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130008837



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1