ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 May 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170001216 APPLICANT REQUESTS: To be officially released from the military APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: A Self-Authored Statement 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 never officially released from active duty. 3. The applicant provides a self-authored statement which states: a. He was stationed at Fort Bliss, TX. He was ordered to report to William Beaumont Army Hospital before completing advance individual training (AIT) for two days of testing. When he returned, to his unit they had already graduated and departed the base. The barracks was completely empty, however, his green uniform was left lying on the bunk and his clothes in his locker. He never got a chance to graduate, the Army had abandoned him, and the Army left this Soldier behind. The Army denied him the right to be treated like a Soldier to complete active duty. He was left with no orders, nowhere to go or any idea of what to do. He returned to his barracks, put on his dress green uniform and hitch hiked home. b. In addition, he received an Army Special Order stating he was separated in absenteeism. How can the Army separate him if he was in their care at an Army hospital at the time? This is an injustice that occurred 44 years ago and he was a young 18 year old Soldier. His release/separation date is in error and technically he has never been released from active duty. How can the Army separate him in absenteeism, when they left him behind, forgotten, alone, and denied the right for graduation? a. c. He also states, he volunteered as a 17 year old senior in high school to serve and he served honorably and now demand to be treated honorably and as a veteran with full benefits. His military record should indicate that his release from active duty for training never happened. He believes he is technically still present on active duty, now 44 years later. 4. A review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. He enlisted in the Army National Guard on 5 February 1972 and was assigned to the State of New Mexico National Guard (NMANG). b. The State of New Mexico Order number E-05-40, dated 17 May 1972, ordered him to active duty training (ADT) for 22 weeks, he reported to Fort Polk, Louisiana for basic combat training on 1 June 1972 and further transitioned to AIT at Fort Bliss, Texas on 11 August 1972. c. The DD Form 220 (Active Duty Report) states his first day of active duty for training was 1 June 1972. He signed item 18 on 7 June 1972 indicating he was medically qualified to perform satisfactory military service. d. His military personnel record is void of specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the NMARNG. e. The applicant was discharged on 4 February 1978. His National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows he was discharge under the provision of National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200, paragraph 1, for expiration term of service, and his service characterization is honorable. He completed a period of 6 years. 5. The Army Review Board Agency by letter, on 30 September 2015, informed the applicant that in response to his application on11 May 2015, he requested correction to his active duty services dates that he had not exhausted his administrative remedies. They advised him to submit his request to Army Human Resources Command (AHRC) Service Center for review and appropriate action. The application was return without prejudice and without action by the Board. 6. AHRC, by letter, on 29 September 2017 to the applicant responded to his request for a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) informed him that they returned his request without action, as they had previously notified him, he must have at a minimum entry date, release date, grade, and character of Service to issue a statement of Service. His record at the National Personnel Records Center is incomplete and, by his own admission he is not able to provide any further documentation or leave and earning statements. Unfortunately, based on the profound lack of supporting documentation, they remained unable to neither issue a statement of Service nor replace the DD Form 214. AHRC advised him that since they 1. are unable to further assist him, and he had exhausted administrative remedies that he may reapply to the Board for consideration. 7. NGR 600- 200, states the notification of discharge may be either: actual, by giving to the Soldier the discharge order, certificate, and original and copy 1, if requested of NGB Form 22, or constructive, when, due to the absence of the Soldier. 8. 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, the Board found the relief was not warranted. The applicant received a DD Form 220 as a member of the ARNG that shows he entered Active duty for training. He completed training and continued to serve as an ARNG member. The applicant’s record does not show he was ordered to Active duty for an assignment nor contingency operation in which he would receive a DD Form 214 for that period of service. His NGB Form 22 accurately shows his service dates in the remarks section. The Board agreed his record is correct and there is no further separation document required. 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. 5/28/2019 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. NGR 600- 200, currently in effect establishes standards, policies, and procedures for the management of the ARNG enlisted Soldiers in the functional areas of: classification and reclassification, personnel management, assignment and transfer, including interstate transfer, special duty assignment pay, enlisted separations, command sergeant major program. a. Paragraph 6-7(a)(1), states at separation, the following types of characterization of service or description of separation are authorized: separation with characterization of service as honorable, general (under honorable conditions), or under other than honorable conditions. b. Paragraph 6-8b, if a Soldier’s service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as under honorable conditions. Characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) is warranted when significant negative aspect of the Soldier’s conduct or performance of duty outweighs positive aspects of the Soldier’s military record. c. Paragraph 6-8c, under other than honorable conditions, service may, but is not required to be characterized as under other than honorable conditions only when discharge is for misconduct, fraudulent entry, homosexual conduct, unsatisfactory participation, or security reasons, and the following circumstances. d. Paragraph 6-21, the notification of discharge may be either: actual, by giving to the Soldier the discharge order, certificate, and original and copy 1 if requested of NGB Form 22, or constructive, when, due to the absence of the Soldier, actual delivery of the discharge certificate and related documents cannot be accomplished. Receipt by the Soldier’s organization of the order directing the discharge is sufficient notice to provide constructive notification of discharge. A notation will be made in item the remarks of the NGB Form 22 explaining the reason for the constructive notification. The discharge order, certificate, and original of NGB Form 22 will be mailed to the Soldier’s last official address. 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 1. 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.