ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
IN THE CASE OF:    BOARD DATE: 19 May 2021 DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20210007494 
APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests, in effect, the upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
. DD Form 293 (Application for the Army Discharge Review Board) . Applicant's civilian arrest record covering the period 1981 through 2001 . DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty). . Two letters of support 
FACTS: 
1. 
The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10 (Armed Forces), United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b) (Correction of Military Records: Claims Incident Thereto). However, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 

2. 
The applicant states, in effect, he is seeking this upgrade to obtain medical care. In support of his request, the applicant provides his DD Form 214 and two letters of support, both of which laud the applicant as a kind, church-going man who works hard. The applicant additionally submits his civilian arrest record showing arrests and convictions from 1981 through 2001; the applicant is apparently pointing out that, while in trouble with law enforcement early in his life, he has had no arrests/convictions for the past 20 years. 

3. 
The applicant's service records show: 


a. 
On 23 August 1978, the applicant enlisted into the Regular Army for 4 years; he was 18 years old. Upon completion of initial entry training, and the award of military occupational specialty 63B (Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic), orders assigned the applicant to Fort Lewis, WA; however, the applicant failed to report to his new duty station. 

b. 
On 4 January 1979, the Adjutant General Replacement Detachment at Fort Lewis reported the applicant as absent without leave (AWOL); the applicant's service record does not show the replacement detachment dropped the applicant from unit rolls. On 20 March 1979, the applicant returned to military control at Fort Lewis; the available record does not indicate whether the applicant surrendered himself or civil authority returned him, but does confirm the applicant's subsequent transfer to the U.S. Army Personnel Holding Detachment (PCF) at Fort Lewis, effective 28 March 1979. 

c. 
On 9 April 1979, the PCF preferred court-martial charges against the applicant for AWOL from 4 January until 20 March 1979 (75 days). On 11 April 1979, after consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge under chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service), Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). In his request, he affirmed no one subjected him to coercion, and his counsel had advised him of the implications of his request; he further acknowledged he was guilty of the charge. He elected not to submit statements in his own behalf. 

d. 
On 11 April 1979, the applicant's PCF commander recommended approval of the applicant's separation request, stating the applicant was unmotivated and had little potential for rehabilitation. 

e. 
On 24 April 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant's request and directed his under other than honorable conditions discharge; in addition, he ordered the applicant's reduction to the lowest enlisted grade (the applicant was already a private/E-1, so no change in rank occurred). 

f. 
On 1 May 1979, orders discharged the applicant accordingly. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 5 months and 24 days of his 4-year enlistment contract, with 75 days of lost time; the DD Form 214 listed no awards or decorations. 


4. The applicant asks the Board, in effect, to upgrade his character of service so he can become eligible for medical care. 
a. 
During the applicant's era of service, Soldiers charged with UCMJ violations, for which a punitive discharge was an authorized maximum punishment, could request separation under chapter 10, AR 635-200. Such requests were voluntary and available in-lieu of trial by court-martial. The Manual for Courts-Martial, then in effect, showed a punitive discharge was one of the available maximum punishments for violations of Article 86 (AWOL for More than 30 Days). 

b. 
The ABCMR does not grant requests for upgraded characters of service solely to make the applicant eligible for Veterans' benefits; however, in reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition, his arguments and 


2 
assertions, and his service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency guidance. 
5. 
By regulation, an individual who has committed an offense or offenses, the punishment for any of which includes a bad conduct discharge or dishonorable discharge, may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service. An Under Other than Honorable Discharge Certificate normally is appropriate for a member who is discharged for the good of the service. 

6. 
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: 
After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, and published DoD guidance for consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, his record of service, the frequency and nature of his misconduct, the reason for his separation and whether to apply clemency.  The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors for the misconduct. The Board considered the applicant provided post-service letters of support and other documents, but detemined them to be insufficient to weigh a clemency determination. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the character of service the applicant received upon separation was not in error or unjust. 
3 
BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING XXX XXX XX DENY APPLICATION 
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 
The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. 
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, in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel. 
a. 
Paragraph 1-13a (Honorable Discharge). An honorable discharge was a separation with honor; commanders issued an honorable discharge certificate based on the Soldier's proper military behavior and proficient duty performance. Commanders were to give due consideration to the Soldier's age, length of service, and general aptitude. Where there were infractions of discipline, commanders were to assess the extent of those infractions as well as the seriousness of the offenses. 

b. 
Paragraph 1-13b (General Discharge). A general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions, where the Soldier's military record was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 

c. 
Chapter 10 applied to Soldiers who had committed an offense or offenses for which the punishment under the UCMJ included a punitive (i.e. bad conduct or dishonorable) discharge. Soldiers could voluntarily request discharge once charges had been preferred; commanders were responsible for ensuring such requests were personal decisions, made without coercion, and following being granted access to counsel. Commanders had to give the Soldier a reasonable amount of time to consult with counsel prior to making his/her decision. The Soldier was required to make his/her request in writing, which certified he/she had been counseled, understood his/her rights, could receive an under other than honorable conditions character of service, and recognized the adverse nature of such a character of service. Consulting counsel was to sign the request as a witness. 


2. 
The Manual for Courts-Martial, United States 1969 (Revised Edition), Table of Maximum Punishments showed a punitive discharge was an available punishment for Soldiers convicted of violating Article 86 (AWOL for more than 30 days). 

3. 
AR 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), in effect at the time, stated in paragraph 7-64c (Reasons for Reduction – Approved for Discharge from Service Under Other Than Honorable Conditions), Soldiers being separated with an under other than honorable conditions discharge were to be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. 

4. 
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 on the basis of 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//