ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  29 May 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20170001143


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  an upgrade of his under honorable (general) conditions discharge.

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)

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 he was caught up in a racial riot at Schofield Barracks.  A few days later his commanding officer called him into his office and said his life had been threatened.  He stated he couldn’t guarantee his safety, so he gave him the choice of transferring anywhere or get discharged.

3.  A review of the applicant’s service record shows the following:

	a.  He enlisted in the Regular Army 27 October 1972.

	b.  He served in Hawaii from 29 March 1973 to 23 November 1973.

	c.  The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishments under the provisions of Article 15 on/for:

* 25 July 1973, failing to go to his appointed place of duty and failure to obey an lawful order
* 17 August 1973, failing to report to his appointed place of duty
* 10 September 1973, wrongfully having in your possession marijuana a controlled substance
	d.  On 13 November 1973, 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 5-37 Qualitative Management Program (QMP) because of his failure to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion advancement.

	e.  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 5-37 of AR 635-200, the effect on future enlistments in the Army, the possible effects of a under honorable (general) discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  He acknowledged he understood if he were issued an under honorable (general) discharge, he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.  He consented to this discharge and declined making a statement in his own behalf.

	f.  Subsequent to this action, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him under the QMP.  The immediate commander recommended a under honorable conditions discharge (general).

	g.  The separation authority approved the discharge under the provisions of 
AR 635-200, paragraph 5-37 and directed the applicant be furnished a under honorable (general) discharge.  On 13 November 1973, the applicant was discharged accordingly.

	h.  His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 5-37 of AR 635-200 by reason of "QMP" with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  He completed 1 years, 1 months, and 4 days of active service.  It also shows he was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service Ribbon

4.  By regulation, Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), chapter 4, in effect at the time set forth policy and prescribed procedures for denying reenlistment under the QMP.  That program was based on the premise that reenlistment was a privilege for those whose performance, conduct, attitude, and potential for advancement met Army standards.  It was designed to enhance the quality of the career enlisted force, selectively retain the best qualified Soldiers to 30 years of active duty, deny reenlistment to non-progressive and nonproductive Soldiers, and encourage Soldiers to maintain their eligibility for further service.

5.  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 review of the application and all evidence, to include the DoD guidance on liberal consideration when reviewing discharge upgrade requests, the Board determined there is insufficient evidence to grant relief.  Based upon the relatively short term of service completed prior to a pattern of misconduct, as well as a lack of character evidence submitted by the applicant showing he has learned and grown from the events leading to 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.


	 
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 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), chapter 4, in effect at the time set forth policy and prescribed procedures for denying reenlistment under the QMP.  That program was based on the premise that reenlistment was a privilege for those whose performance, conduct, attitude, and potential for advancement met Army standards.  It was designed to enhance the quality of the career enlisted force, selectively retain the best qualified Soldiers to 30 years of active duty, deny reenlistment to non-progressive and nonproductive Soldiers, and encourage Soldiers to maintain their eligibility for further service.

3.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Paragraph 1-13 (Honorable discharge) states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  Issuance of an honorable discharge certificate is predicated upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member's current enlistment or period of obligated service with due consideration for the member's age, length of service, grade, and general aptitude.  Where a member has served faithfully and performed to the best of his ability and there is no derogatory information in his military record, he should be furnished an honorable discharge certificate.

	b.  Paragraph 1-13b (General discharge) A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. It is issued to a member whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

	c.  Paragraph 1-13c (Under other than honorable conditions) A discharge under other than honorable condition is an administrative separation from the service under conditions other than honorable. It may be issued for misconduct, for security reasons, or for the good of the service

4.  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 regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations.  Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence and ABCMRs 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 discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds.  The 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, an injustice, or clemency grounds, ABCMRs shall consider the twelve stated principles in the guidance as well as eighteen individual factors related to an applicant.  These factors include the severity of the misconduct and the length of time since the misconduct.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20170001143


3


1