IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 December 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150005935 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 requests, in effect, a change in the Separation Program Designator (SPD) Code shown on his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) for the period ending 18 June 1979. 2. The applicant states his SPD Code identifies him as a conscientious objector. He was discharged 3 months prior to his expiration term of service (ETS) date. He did not object to killing the enemy; however, he objected to the use of nuclear weapons on civilians. As part of the Army Nuclear Surety Program and as a forward observer, he would plot where the nuclear artillery shells would land. He objected to dropping shells on major cities and towns. With up to a 5 mile radius, the Army felt a 35 to 50 percent civilian casualty rate was acceptable. When he objected, he was removed from the program. He feels he has been mislabeled. He doesn't believe voicing his opinion on the killing of innocent old men, women and children is cause for the military labeling him a coward. 3. The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his request. 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 applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 May 1971. He completed his initial entry training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B (Cannon Crewman). 3. On 16 March 1979, the applicant submitted an application for discharge as a conscientious objector. In a letter, he stated he felt he could no longer serve in the capacity of a combat leader in the Armed Forces. He further stated: a. His faith and moral beliefs could no longer condone the training and practices of the annihilation of another human being. His strong religious and moral beliefs stemmed from his childhood. He received his religious training from the Roman Catholic Church and his moral beliefs were molded by his parents who taught him love and respect for his fellow man. b. One day on a field exercise in Alaska in 1976, a young man had his arm taken off by a piece of shrapnel. He watched him lie there, no arm, bleeding to death. It made him sick to think of all the men, women and children who had been shredded by shrapnel or burned to death by napalm. It disgusted him to know how many ways he had been taught to kill a man. He became disillusioned and confused with the Army and was no longer an effective leader. c. After the training accident his commander recommended that he work away from the combat environment and he moved into an office environment in the battalion S3 office until his transfer to Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Once there, he was assigned to the howitzer section. He did poorly and was counseled numerous times by the unit commander. He finally explained to his commander that he had a conflict with his job and the teachings of Jesus Christ. d. His commander recommended that he be reassigned to the brigade S1. He became very good at the job, but in the back of his mind he knew he might someday be asked to be in a combat situation. Upon his transfer to Hawaii, he decided to put his feelings away and try and work in a combat environment, but he could not. He became a poor leader, would have nightmares, could not sleep, and became very depressed. It was not until he announced his intentions to apply for conscientious objector status that he felt relief. 4. On 13 April 1979, an investigating officer (IO) was appointed to conduct an investigation into the applicant's conscientious objector application. On 20 April 1979, the IO concluded the applicant's underlying basis for his application was one in which he found it objectionable to take, or see another person take, a human life. The IO stated the applicant held a deep, firm, fixed, and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or bearing of arms, by reason of religious training and belief. 5. His chain of command recommended approval of the applicant's request for conscientious objector status and on 14 May 1979, his case was deemed legally sufficient. Statements by the applicant, chaplain, division psychiatrist, and IO, as well as summaries of the testimony pursuant to the investigation, taken as a whole, established by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant's claims were within the criteria required of Army Regulation 600-43 (Conscientious Objection). 6. The applicant’s request was approved on 22 May 1979. The applicant was discharged on 18 June 1979 for the convenience of the government with an Honorable Discharge Certificate. Item 9c (Authority and Reason) of the DD Form 214 he was issued contains the entry "AR 600-43 SPD KCM." 7. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes) provides that SPD code "KCM" is the appropriate code for Soldiers separating under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-43. 8. Paragraph 2-1 of Army Regulation 635-5-1 provides that SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of Department of Defense and the military services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's request for, in effect, a change in the SPD code shown on his DD Form 214 for the period ending 18 June 1979, has been carefully examined. 2. Notwithstanding the applicant's contentions and belief that the military has labeled him a coward, the evidence of record clearly shows he requested to be discharged from service as a conscientious objector in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 600-43. Based on his request and its subsequent approval, he was honorably discharged and assigned an SPD code in accordance with Army Regulation 635-5-1 for Soldiers separating under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-43. 3. The SPD code of "KCM" is the appropriate code for Soldiers separating under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-43. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ___x____ ____x___ 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 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150005935 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150005935 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1