ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 April 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160012453 APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect, an upgrade of his general discharge to honorable. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 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 AR20150007011 on 17 April 2015. 2. The applicant states: * it has been 2 years since he got out of the Army * he has been attending college * he wants to reenter military service and attend officer candidate school * he acknowledges he misused the Government Travel Charge Card, but he did it to feed his family since he was demoted and didn't have funds to buy food or pay bills 3. The applicant received nonjudicial punishment on 5 December 2013 while serving in the rank/grade of specialist/E-4 for willfully disobeying a lawful order on or about 20 August 2013, wrongfully using a Government Travel Charge Card to pay for personal expenses and for cash withdrawals between on or about 25 July 2013 and on or about 21 August 2013, and failing to pay undisputed charges in a timely manner on or about 1 October 2013. His punishment include reduction to private first class/E-3. 4. On 7 December 2013, a bar to reenlistment was imposed against him for violating leave parameters, misusing a Government Travel Charge Card, and failing to manage his personal finances. 5. On 9 May 2014, he underwent a mental status evaluation for the purpose of separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 14 (Misconduct). The examining psychologist found he had no obvious cognition impairments, his behavior was cooperative, his perceptions were normal, he was unlikely to be impulsive, and he exhibited no danger. The examining psychologist opined he could understand and participate in administrative proceedings, he could appreciate the difference between right and wrong, and he met medical retention requirements. He was cleared for administrative processing from a behavioral health perspective. 6. On 8 July 2014, his company commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him for commission of a serious offense under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c. His commander recommended issuance of a general discharge under honorable conditions. The applicant acknowledged receipt of his separation notification. 7. On 9 July 2014, he indicated in writing that he was advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, and its effects, of the rights available to him, and the effect of any action taken by him in waiving his rights. a. He requested consulting counsel. b. He indicated he understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were issued to him and he might be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. c. He indicated he understood he could apply to the Army Discharge Review Board or the ABCMR for upgrading if he received a discharge certificate/character of service which was less than honorable; however, an act of consideration by either board did not imply that his discharge would be upgraded. d. He understood he was ineligible to apply for enlistment in the U.S. Army for a period of 2 years after discharge. e. He elected not to submit statements in his own behalf. 8. The applicant was discharged by reason of misconduct – serious offense under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, effective 26 August 2014. He completed 5 years, 1 month, and 27 days of active service. His service was characterized as under honorable conditions (general). 9. On 17 April 2015, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for a discharge upgrade. The board determined his discharge was both proper and equitable. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. BOARD DISCUSSION: After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined there is insufficient evidence to grant relief. The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered. The Board applied Department of Defense standards of liberal consideration to the complete evidentiary record and did not find any evidence of error, injustice, or inequity. He did not provide character witness statements or evidence of post-service achievements for the Board to consider. Based upon the record, the Board agreed that the applicant's discharge characterization was warranted as a result of the misconduct. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : 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 the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. 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. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): not applicable. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at that time, set forth the authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a stated a honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier'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 3-7b stated 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 established policy and prescribed procedures for separating personnel for misconduct because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, and absence without leave. Paragraph 14-12c stated Soldiers were subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civil offense, if the specific circumstances of the warrant separation and a punitive discharge is or would be authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the manual for courts-martial. 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 court-martial forum. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court- martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide BCM/NRs 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// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160012453 3 1