ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 April 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160018096 APPLICANT REQUESTS: his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. 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), dated 21 October 2016 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), Section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) 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 he was disciplined for sleeping on guard duty. He would like to be able to get benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 September 1976. 4. The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 22 February 1978, under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for falsifying an official sick slip with intent to deceive, on or about 31 January 1978, and for being derelict in the performance of his duties (sleeping in the dining facility storeroom), on or about 2 February 1978. 5. Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 10 May 1978. His DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) shows he was charged with stealing a watch from another Soldier, disobeying a lawful order by having a female in the male's billeting area, and being derelict in the performance of his duties by failing to stay awake during barracks guard duty. 6. The applicant accepted NJP on 5 June 1978, under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty, on or about 25 May 1978. 1. 7. The applicant consulted with legal counsel on 21 June 1978. a. He was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and the procedures and rights that were available to him. b. Subsequent to receiving legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court- martial. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged his understanding that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge against him, or of a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. He further acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request was approved he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. c. He was advised he could submit any statements he desired in his own behalf. His request shows he made an election to submit a statement, wherein he noted that he wanted a chapter 10 because he had a job playing for a band and it paid good money. He needed that job and he was happy because he had been playing for 17 years and he could not stop. He knew music best and he had the chance to play his music. 8. The separation authority approved his request for discharge on 10 July 1978 and directed the applicant's reduction to the lowest enlisted grade and the issuance of a UOTHC discharge. 9. The applicant was discharged on 31 July 1978, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court- martial. His DD Form 214 confirms his service was characterized as UOTHC. 10. The Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge on 23 February 1981. 11. Army Regulation 635-200, in affect at that time, set forth the policies, standards, and procedures to insure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of enlisted members for a variety of reasons. 12. The Board should consider the applicant's statement in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. 1. 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 and a lack of character evidence presented by the applicant showing he has learned and grown from the events leading to the discharge, 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. 4/30/2019 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 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 635-5 (Personnel Separations – Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army. It establishes the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214. It states the DD Form 214 provides a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge. 3. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a states 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. b. Paragraph 3-7b states that 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 10 states 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 under other than honorable conditions would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. 4. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records on 25 July 2018, regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records 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. 1. a. 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 on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, Boards 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. b. 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.