ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 July 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160015932 APPLICANT REQUESTS: upgrade his general under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States) * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records 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 stated that he passed his entry exam. He tried hard to do his job. He was transferred to Germany. His pay never transferred, and so they discharged him. He worked in civil service since he was discharged. 3. The applicant provided his DD Form 214 that shows block 11c (reason for authority), and block 15 (reenlistment code) have been altered. 4. A Review of the applicant's service record shows: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 29 July 1970 for a 3 year period. b. DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows: * Block 2 (grade) and block 3 (date of rank) shows he attained the rank of private first class (PFC)/E-3 on 2 April 1971. * Block 38 (Record of Assignments) shows he served in Germany from 16 February 1971 to 13 December 1971. c. On 26 August 1971, an AE Form 3133 (Unit Commanders Report for Psychiatric Examination) shows the commander’s concern regarding the applicant’s behavior. The commander stated: * the applicant first came to his attention, when he was carrying an over length knife and refused to surrender it, as he was sure the world was out to kill him * the applicant was raised in an orphanage, and believes the applicant never knew love or security; this is his problem * as pressure is applied to the applicant to get something done, his attitude gets worse and worse * he doesn’t get along; the man is a loner * the applicant was transferred within the battalion once and twice within the company d. On 27 August 1971, an AE Form 3087 (Report of Psychiatric Evaluation) shows: * the applicant was diagnosed with schizoid personality, manifested by impoverished interpersonal relation, isolation, identity conflicts and feeling of alienation * he had a character and behavior disorder with poor rehabilitation potential * he was recommended for separation under Army Regulation (AR) 635-212 (Personnel Separations – Discharge Unfitness and Unsuitability) e. On 27 August 1971, an AE Form 2183 (Enlisted Personnel Data) shows: * the applicant was diagnosed with ambnopia, poor depth and perception * block 34 (Flagging Action Under AR 600-31) shows he was flagged on 13 August 1971 and being processed for an unsuitability discharge f. On 6 October 1971, the applicant’s immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-212, and his recommendation for discharge due to unsuitability and inability to adapt to military life. g. On 7 October 1971, he was advised by counsel of, the basis for the contemplated action to separate him, its effects, and the rights available to him. He acknowledged: * he waived consideration before a board * he was submitting statements in his own behalf * he waived representation by counsel * he understood that he may withdraw his waiver, and request a board of officers to hear his case up until the date the discharge authority directs or approves his case h. On 15 November 1971, his immediate commander recommended the applicant appear before a board of officers for the purpose of determining if the applicant should be discharged prior to his expiration of his term of service. He recommended the applicant be granted an honorable discharge as the applicant’s duty conduct was of an honorable nature, but he did not have the capability to adjust to military life. i. On 22 November 1971, the separation authority waived the 60 day rehabilitation requirement, and directed his discharge under provisions of AR 635-212 (Personnel Separations – Discharge Unfitness and Unsuitability), Separation Program Number (SPN) 264 (unsuitability, character and behavior disorders) with the issuance of a DD Form 257A, General Discharge Certificate. j. On 23 November 1971, the intermediate command recommended approval of the discharge, appearance before a board of officers be waived, the rehabilitation transfer be waived, and a General Discharge Certificate be furnished. k. Special Order 351, dated 17 December 1971, shows the applicant was furnished a General 257A discharge at Fort Dix, NJ. l. The applicant was discharged on 17 December 1971. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 year, 4 months and 19 days of active service. Block 13a (Character of Service) shows under honorable (under honorable conditions (General) as directed). 5. On 8 January 1975, the applicant completed a Standard Form (SF) 180 (Request Pertaining to Military Records) that shows: * he provided an original DD Form 214 requesting the separation program number (SPN) be removed * he indicated he needed the SPN removed so he may get employment * on 12 February 1975, the form was endorsed by B. J__, indicating the SPN (separation program number) and REL (reenlistment) codes had been deleted from the DD 214 * the applicant’s record is void of an official copy or documentation reflecting the changes 6. The applicant’s record is void of evidence that show he applied for a discharge upgrade with the Army Discharge Review Board within 15 years of the separation. 7. On 2 May 2019, the ARBA medical advisor rendered a medical advisory opinion in the processing of this case. The symptoms of schizoaffective disorder much more closely describe the written observations by the applicant’s chain of command. Given that “stove piping” resulted in chain of command behavioral observations not fully being evaluated by the behavioral health providers, “what right looks like” in this case is a recommendation to upgrade the applicant’s characterization of discharge. He opined the applicant: * was administered a psychiatric examination on 27 August 1971 * may have met the criteria for schizoaffective disorder at the time he was administratively discharged * he failed medical retention standards at the time he was discharged * he was administratively separated for unsatisfactory performance/failure to adjust, when severe mental illness was likely present 8. On 6 May 2019, the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for acknowledgment and/or response. He did not respond. 9. By regulation, separations under the provisions of AR 635-212, established policy and prescribed procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel who are found to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service. 10. 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, to include the DoD guidance on liberal consideration when reviewing discharge upgrade requests, the Board determined that relief was warranted. Based upon the recommendation within the medical advisory and the company commander’s sworn statement found within the service record, the Board concluded that upgrading the characterization of service to Honorable was appropriate. 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 the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the applicant a DD Form 214 showing his characterization of service as Honorable. 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. Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three 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 three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. AR 635-212, (Personnel Separations – Discharge Unfitness and Unsuitability) Section VII, paragraph 24 (Form of discharge certificate to be given) in effect at the time, provides for an individual discharged for unsuitability will be furnished DD Form 256a (Honorable Discharge Certificate) or DD Form 257a (General Discharge Certificate) as directed by the convening authority. 3. AR 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Separations), currently in effect, sets forth the basic policy for separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a (Honorable Discharge) states an 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. b. Paragraph 3-7b (General Discharge) 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. 4. AR 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)) states ABCMR members will review all applications that are properly before them to determine the existence of an error. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing. Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 5. 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160015932 5 1