BOARD DATE: 7 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015134 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X____ __X______ ____X____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 7 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015134 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. BOARD DATE: 7 February 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150015134 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 an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to a general discharge. 2. He states, in effect, he has always maintained the Army has his records confused with another Soldier with the exact same name, but a different social security number (SSN). That Soldier actually perpetrated the offenses stated in the discharge action; he believes the records were “crossed.” 3. He provides: * four DA Forms 2627-1 (Record of Proceeding Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) * Depart of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 4597 (Your Rights to Appeal Our Decision) * Board of Veterans’ Appeals Decision letter, dated 21 March 2014 * VA Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of Claim), dated 18 August 2015 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 AR20080010830 on 4 September 2008. 2. He presents a new argument that warrants consideration by the Board. 3. On 22 September 1972, as part of the enlistment process, the applicant completed a DD Form 98 (Armed Forces Security Questionnaire). His SSN is listed on this document as “961-xx-xxxx.” At the time, a temporary identification number (TIN) was issued to individuals who did not have an SSN upon entry in the Army. All TINs began with the number “9.” The Social Security Administration has confirmed that no SSN beginning with the number "9" has been used in the history of the program. Page 4 of the DD Form 98 contains the signature the applicant used throughout his record. 4. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 September 1972. After completing basic training he was assigned to Fort Gordon, GA, for advanced individual training (AIT) in military occupational specialty (MOS) 31M (radio relay and carrier attendant). 5. His military personnel records also contain numerous documents with the above TIN, which was lined through and replaced with SSN 214-xx-xxxx. These documents include: * DD Form 4 (Enlistment Contract-Armed Forces of the United States) * DA Form 20 (Enlisted Personnel Qualification Record) * several DA Forms 2627-1 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), which show the signature the applicant used throughout his period of service 6. On 18 December 1972, the Course Chief, U.S. Army South Eastern Signal School (USASESS), Fort Gordon, GA, recommended the applicant be relieved from the 31M course and assigned to an MOS producing school more in line with his abilities. The applicant accepted the recommendation. This document lists his TIN as 961-xx-xxxx. He subsequently completed training in MOS 36K (wireman). 7. His disciplinary record shows during his period of service he failed to go to his appointed place of duty on four occasions. He received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for this misconduct on: a. 4 December 1972 and 1 February 1973, USASESS, Fort Gordon, GA (TIN entry begins with “961”). b. 2 April 1973, 4th AIT Brigade, Fort Polk, LA, his SSN entry begins with “314,” (which appears to be a typographical error as only the first digit in this SSN does not match the applicant’s). c. 21 June 1973, 709th Maintenance Battalion, Fort Lewis, WA, his SSN entry begins with “214”. 8. His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows in item 44 (Time Lost Under Section 972, U.S. Code and Subsequent to Normal Date [Expiration Term of Service]) he was AWOL from 1 November 1973 to 27 February 1974 (119 days). 9. Item 38 (Record of Assignments) of his DA Form 20 shows he was dropped from Army rolls on 30 November 1973. 10. A memorandum issued by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), dated 28 February 1974, shows the applicant surrendered to the FBI office in Houston, TX, on 27 February 1974. This form identifies him with SSN beginning with “214” and the TIN beginning with “961,” which were both known to have been used by the applicant. 11. On 1 May 1974, he was discharged with his service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. He completed 1 year, 3 months, and 11 days of total active service with 119 days of lost time. 12. There is no indication in his records that he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. 13. He provides a VA Statement in Support of Claim, dated 18 August 2015, submitted in response to the denial of his claim for benefits by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. He contended that: * someone blacked out the SSNs on the DA Forms 2627-1, dated 4 December 1972 and 1 February 1973 * the DA Form 2627-1, dated 12 April 1973 shows the incorrect SSN beginning with “961” * the DA Form 2627-1, dated 18 June 1973 shows his original SSN beginning with “214” * his Leave and Earning Statements show the number of days he was charged absent without leave (AWOL) was considerably overstated, and the exact number of days was not listed on any of the DA Forms 2627-1 * he has never denied he was AWOL and he accepted his punishment; however, his discharge was based on additional AWOL periods which was not true * there were no positions for a lineman when he got to Fort Lewis, WA, so he was assigned to the motor pool and the Army lost track of him * he was not paid for 3 months, but did receive back pay after the error was discovered * upon notification that his mother was sick he requested a hardship discharge with all the documentation, somewhere in the process his records were crossed with another Soldier in his company with the same name * he believed the documents, including several character references that he submitted, were in support of his request for a hardship discharge * the Army never mentioned that he would receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge * no Soldier would accept an under other than honorable conditions discharge just to get out of the Army; it does not make sense * it is not beyond the realm of possibility that these actions occurred as he stated * a review of the necessary records would prove there was another Soldier in his unit and his SSN was crossed with his SSN 14. He also provides the same four DA Forms 2627-1 found in his record; however, the forms dated 4 December 1972 and 1 February 1973 have the SSN blacked out. These same forms are discussed in paragraph 7 of these proceedings and show his TIN was entered as beginning with “961.” 15. His record does not contain a request for a hardship discharge, a discharge packet, or a charge sheet. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 600-2 (Name and Birth Data, Social Security Account Number, and TIN), effective 1 July 1969, announced the use of the SSN in lieu of military service numbers. A TIN would be issued during the pre-enlistment processing for entrance in the active Army to those individuals who did not have an SSN. The TIN was a 9-digit number that always began with the number "9." Upon receipt of an SSN, the TIN entry on all records would be lined out and the SSN would be entered. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate. At the time, an undesirable discharge was normally given. b. Paragraph 3-7b states 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. 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. 3. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to a general discharge. 2. He contends, in effect, that another Soldier with the same name but a different SSN committed the misconduct which led to his discharge. 3. It appears the applicant did not have an SSN when he enlisted in the Regular Army; thus, he was issued a TIN beginning with “961.” Subsequently, he obtained an SSN beginning with “214” and the TIN was lined through and replaced with the SSN on several documents, to include his enlistment contract and DA Form 20. 4. The TIN listed on both Article 15s in question is the TIN that was assigned to him at the time of entry on active duty. This TIN was only assigned to the applicant. 5. His disciplinary record includes an extensive period of AWOL, an offense for which he could have been tried by court-martial and punished with a punitive discharge under the UCMJ. 6. The complete facts and circumstances of his discharge are not available; however, discharges under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant is presumed to have voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015134 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150015134 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2