ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 May 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160018018 APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade of his general discharge APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) request for information coversheet * 54-page VA Patient Medical records 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 states, in effect, he was not mentally ready to go to war at such a young age. He saw and experienced more than his young mind could process and, as a result, he started drinking. Had his superiors addressed his troubles, which were clearly noticeable, the outcome of his discharge and future way of dealing with stress and depression would have been different. In addition, he would like to further his education and have the ability to receive VA benefits 3. The applicant provides a VA request for information coversheet, along with 54 pages of his VA patient records. The patient records contain his problems lists, lab results, consult requests, health summaries, and progress notes. 4. A review of the applicant's service record shows: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 August 1997. a. b. He accepted nonjudicial punishment on 25 August 1999 for theft from the Army Air Force Exchange Services (AAFES) on 17 August 1999. c. His duty status changed as follows: * from present for duty (PDY) to absent without leave (AWOL), effective 1 November 1999 * from AWOL to PDY, effective 3 November 1999 d. He accepted NJP on 16 November 1999 for being AWOL from 1 November 1999 until 3 November 1999. e. He accepted NJP on 7 December 1999 for wrongfully using marijuana between 9 October and 8 November 1999. f. On 8 December 1999, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, misconduct (commission of serious offense). g. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's intent to separate him on 8 December 1999. He consulted with legal counsel on 10 December 1999. He was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action for misconduct, the type of discharge he could receive and its effect on further enlistment or reenlistment, the possible effects of this discharge, and of the procedures/rights available to him. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. He acknowledged he: * understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were issued to him * understood he could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under Federal and State laws as a result of the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions * understood if he received a discharge characterization of less than honorable, he could make an application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the ABCMR for an upgrade, but he understood that an act of consideration by either board did not imply his discharge would be upgraded h. On 5 January 2000, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, commission of serious offense, with his service characterized as general under honorable conditions. i. His DD Form 214 reflects he was discharged for misconduct (drug abuse), Separation Code JKK, under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c (2), with his service characterized as general under honorable conditions. He was discharged a. on 25 January 2000. He completed 2 years, 5 months, and 4 days of active service. He had lost time from 1 November 1999 to 2 November 1999. 5. On 16 April 2019, the Army Review Boards Medical Advisor, was asked to determine if there is a nexus between the information/diagnoses contained in the documentation and the misconduct that resulted in the applicant's discharge. Based on the information provided by the Board and review of available records, there is no data to indicate that post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was present at the time nor did it mitigate the applicant's misconduct. 6. AR 635-200 states, action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct such as commission of a serious offense. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. 7. 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 not warranted. Based upon a pattern of misconduct, some involving criminal behavior, the Board concluded that the characterization of service received at the time of discharge was appropriate. 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. 5/30/2019 X CHAIRPERSON Signed by: 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. Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a states 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. 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. Chapter 14, of the version in effect at the time, established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories included minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities. It provided that action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impracticable or was unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority could direct an honorable discharge if merited by the Soldier's overall record. 3. 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 1. 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.