ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 June 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160019776 APPLICANT REQUESTS: a reconsideration to his earlier request for an upgrade to his general, under honorable conditions discharge APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * Electronic DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Self-Authored Statement 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 AR20110023975 on 24 May 2012. 2. The applicant provides a detailed self-authored statement which is attached describing the incidents and his military and personal experiences. 3. A view of the applicant’s record shows: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 October 1987. b. His record contains 6 counseling statements on various offenses: * 28 March 1988, for writing bad checks * 24 May 1988, for failure to report for duty * 31 May 1988, for below average scores on overall job performance * 24 August 1988, for declined motivation, attitude, and appearance * 30 September 1988, for poor attitude * 8 November 1988, for failure to follow instructions for sick call c. On 14 December 1988, the applicant’s immediate commander initiated discharge proceedings under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel), citing unsatisfactory performance with the issuance of a general, under honorable conditions discharge. a. d. The applicant acknowledged the commanders’ notification and waived his right to consult with counsel. The applicant understood: * that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions is issued to him * that should he receive a discharge certificate/character of service which is less than honorable, he may make application to the Army Discharge Review Board or the Army Board for Corrections of Military Records for upgrading; however, he realizes that an act of consideration by either board does not imply that his discharge will be upgraded * he would not be permitted to apply for reenlistment in the United States Army within 2 years of his separation * he declined the opportunity to submit a statement on his behalf e. On 14 December 1988, the commander initiated the separation action under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance, and his chain of command concurred. f. Consistent with the chain of command's recommendation, the separation authority approved the separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, and directed the issuance of a general, under honorable conditions, discharge. g. On 4 January 1989, the applicant was discharged from the Army under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13 with a general, under honorable conditions, discharge. His DD Form 214 shows that he had 1 year, 2 months and 26 days of active service with no lost time. He was awarded or authorized: * Army Service Ribbon * Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16). * Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Hand Grenade 4. The applicant applied to the ABCMR on 30 November 2011 and was denied on 29 May 2012. 5. By regulation, AR 635-200, Soldiers are subject to separation under the provisions of chapter 13, when he or she is unqualified for further military service because of unsatisfactory performance. An honorable or under honorable conditions (general) discharge was an appropriate and authorized characterization of service. 6. 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. 1. 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 and the pattern of misconduct within it, 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20110023975 on 24 May 2012. 6/26/2019 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. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel) in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a provided that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. 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 provided that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a member whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Paragraph 13-1, of this version, in effect at the time, established policy for members that may be separated per this chapter when it is determined that he or she is unqualified for further military service because of unsatisfactory performance. d. Paragraph 13-2 says that commanders will separate a member for unsatisfactory performance when it is clearly established that: * in the commander’s judgement, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier * the seriousness of the circumstances is such that the member’s retention would have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order, and moral * it is likely that the member will be a disruptive influence in the present or future duty assignments * it is likely that the circumstances forming the basis for initiation of separations proceedings will continue or recur * the ability of the member to perform duties effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership is unlikely 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 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, 1. 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//