ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 April 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170000393 APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade of his general discharge. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Chief of Police retirement letter 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 prior to the events leading up to his discharge his military records were unblemished. He was an achiever and was destined to succeed in the military. He was young and immature. When he received orders for Schofield Barracks, HI. His spouse gave him an ultimatum that if he goes she will divorce him. He just retired as Chief of Police, after serving 34 years. He has counselled many young people who have also become lost in life. His focus on his obligations became blurred and within a short period of time he had taken his eyes completely off of his main responsibility, the Army. His lack of setting his priorities in life ultimately led to him being discharged under general, under honorable conditions. The sad part is his wife left him anyways. Later, he was able to refocus and direct myself, becoming a Law Enforcement Officer and retiring after serving the people of NC for 34 years and obtaining the rank of Chief of Police during his career. His position over the past 34 years has allowed him to guide and counsel many young people who have become lost in life, even in military issues where he failed so they would not make the same mistakes. Today reflecting back on his past, he realizes that his general discharge has caused him some embarrassment and deep shame. He requests that his discharge be upgraded to honorable allowing him to display his discharge certificate with great pride and honor. 3. The applicant provides a Retirement Letter, dated 11 August 2016 from the Office of Chief of Police, Shallotte, NC. It speaks of the applicant's retirement and his 34 years of service, as a law enforcement officer, from patrolman to Chief of Police. 4. Review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 October 1979. b. On 11 and 13 September 1980, he was counseled for missing formation. c. On 12 November 1980, he was counseled for failure to make formation. It also states he continues to have family problems with spouse. d. On 20 March 1981, he accepted nonjudicial punishment for being absent without leave from 23 to 16 March 1981. He was reduced to private/E-2. e. On 29 May 1981, his immediate commander advised him that he intended to initiate action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)). The reasons were for lack of self-discipline and inability to adapt socially and emotionally. f. On 30 June 1981, he acknowledged notification of the proposed separation action and consulted with legal counsel. He was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action under the provisions of paragraph 5-31 of AR 635-200, the effect on future enlistments in the Army, the possible effects of a general discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him. He acknowledged he understood if he were issued a general discharge, he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life. He consented to this discharge and declined making a statement on his own behalf. g. Subsequent to this action, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him under the EDP. The immediate commander recommended a General Discharge Certificate. h. On 6 August 1981, the Brigade Commander approved recommendation for discharge of chapter 5, AR 635-200 for failure to meet acceptable standards for continued military service. i. The separation authority approved the discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-31 and directed the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. On 13 August 1981, the applicant was discharged accordingly. j. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 5-31 of AR 635-200 by reason of "EDP" with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. He completed 1 year, 9 months, and 28 days of active service. 5. By regulation, members who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential may be discharged under the EDP. 65. 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 applicant serving close to 2 years of service, and the misconduct which resulted in the discharge being minor in nature, the Board concluded that upgrading the characterization of service to Honorable based upon showing clemency. 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. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 5 provided that members who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential may be discharged under the EDP. It provided for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive Soldiers before board or punitive action became necessary. No member would be discharged under this program unless he/she voluntarily consented to the proposed discharge. Issuance of an honorable discharge certificate was predicated upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member's current enlistment with due consideration for the member's age, length of service, grade, and general aptitude. b. 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. 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 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) AR20170000393 4 1