ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 October 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210005248 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of his previous request for upgrade of his general discharge to fully honorable. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 293 (Application for Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) * Character Reference Letters * Department of Veterans Affairs Rating Decision * Diploma/Associate Degree * Dean's List Cards * Certificates of Achievement or Completion. FACTS: 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 AR20170002732 on 14 May 2019. 2. The applicant states he wants his discharge to go from general to honorable. He provides: a. Diploma, dated 16 December 2019, indicating he has earned and Associate in Arts Degree with two cards listing his name on the Dean's List. b. Certificates of achievement and/or completion indicating his completion of a TRIO Veterans Upward Bound's Tutoring Service. c. VA Rating Decision, dated 27 May 2020, reflecting 100% service-connection for post-traumatic stress disorder. d. Several character reference letters from friends and relatives commenting on his academic achievement, excellent character and integrity, involvement in the community and the church, dedication to service, and his goal of becoming a physical education teacher. The authors all support upgrading his discharge. 3. Review of the applicant's service records shows: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 February 2011 and held military occupational specialty 13F (Fire Support Specialist). b. He served in Afghanistan from 3 October 2011 to 23 July 2012 and in Jordan from 5 October 2013 to 10 March 2014. c. His records show he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on/for: * 6 June 2013, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty; his punishment included reduction to private first class/E-3. * 16 August 2013, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty * 19 December 2013, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty; his punishment included reduction to private/E-2. * 17 January 2014, failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, striking a noncommissioned officer (NCO), and willfully disobeying an NCO during two separate instances on 30 December 2013 d. On 11 February 2014, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct. The reasons for the proposed action are: On 17 January 2014, he received a field grade article 15 for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on multiple occasions, striking an NCO and disobeying a lawful order from an NCO on multiple occasions; on 19 December 2013 he received a company grade article 15 for violating Article 86 on multiple occasions; on 16 August 2013 he received a company grade article 15 for violating Article 86 on multiple occasions. The immediate commander recommended he receives a general discharge. e. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's intent to separate him. He consulted with legal counsel who advised him of the basis for the contemplated separation action for misconduct, the type of discharge he could receive and its effect on further enlistment or reenlistment, the possible effects of this discharge, and of the procedures/rights available to him. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. He acknowledged he: * understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were issued to him * understood he could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under Federal and State laws as a result of the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions * understood if he received a discharge characterization of less than honorable, he could make an application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the ABCMR for an upgrade, but he understood that an act of consideration by either board did not imply his discharge would be upgraded f. Subsequent to this acknowledgement and consultation with counsel, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him due to a pattern of misconduct, in accordance with AR 635-200, chapter 14-12b. His chain of command recommended approval. g. On 20 February 2014, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, with his service characterized as general, under honorable conditions. The applicant was discharged accordingly on 4 April 2014. h. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) reflects he was discharged on 4 April 2014, under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12 b, for a pattern of misconduct, with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions. He completed 3 years, 1 month, and 13 days of active service. He was awarded or authorized: * Afghanistan Campaign Medal with campaign star * Army Commendation Medal * NATO Medal * National Defense Service Medal * Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal * Global War on Terrorism Service Medal * Army Service Ribbon * Overseas Service Ribbon h. On 17 November 2014, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed his discharge and determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. i. On 14 May 2019, the ABCMR also reviewed his application and denied relief. Based upon a pattern of misconduct over an extended period of time, as well as no character evidence submitted by the applicant to show he has learned and grown from the events leading to the discharge, the Board concluded that the character of service received at the time of discharge was appropriate. 4. By regulation (AR 635-200), action will be taken to separate a member for a pattern of misconduct. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. 5. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition and his service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant's request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, and published Department of Defense guidance for consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, his record of service to include deployments, the frequency and nature of his misconduct and the reason for his separation. 2. The Board considered his VA diagnosis and rating for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), his post-service achievements, and the letters of support he provided sufficient to support clemency in this case. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined the applicant's character of service should be changed to honorable as a matter of clemency. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 :X :X :X 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 amendment of the ABCMR’s decision in Docket Number AR20170002732, dated 14 May 2019. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing his DD Form 214 to show his character of service as honorable. 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. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. 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. 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. c. Chapter 14, of the version in effect at the time, established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories included minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities. It provided that action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impracticable or was unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority could direct an honorable discharge if merited by the Soldier's overall record. 2. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court- martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief based on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization. //NOTHING FOLLOWS//