ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 May 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170001230 APPLICANT REQUESTS: a change to his narrative reason for separation 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) * A detailed self-authored letter 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 AR20100009532 on 13 September 2010. 2. The applicant states: a. His request to change the narrative reason for separation is due to the events that led to the Bad Conduct discharge that were created by the reaction from his unit, which is a direct result of the assignment orders from the base Command Sergeant Major. Upon his arrival in September 1983 to his new unit at Fort Richardson, Alaska, he was assigned to serve as the Quartermaster/Armorer (QM) assistant. The person he was replacing was an older Soldier, who resented being replaced, because it meant that he would have to serve more time in the field and other non-office areas. b. In addition, the Sergeant informed him that he did not like nor agree with the reassignment of his position and he would do everything in his power to retaliate against the reassignment. Shortly after the applicant took his position as QM assistance he started getting harassed and threatened during work and non-work hours. This caused him not to be able to perform his duties at times. c. Several times during his cleaning assignment of the Commanding Officers quarters, he would see letters that had fallen on the floor that indicated the company executive officer wanted to “burn this guy”, referring to the applicant. He was forced to a. do remedial duties above and beyond his regular assignments, because of this retaliation. 3. A review of the applicant's service records show: a. He enlisted in the Army on 1 April 1983. b. He accepted NJP on 18 January 1984 for leaving his appointed place of duty. He was reduced to the grade of PVT/E-1. c. The applicant was notified of initiation of separation proceedings on 17 November 1986, under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 9 for alcohol or other drug abuse rehabilitation failure, with a characterization of service of honorable or general under honorable conditions. d. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's intent to separate him on 23 January 1984. He consulted with legal counsel who advised him of the basis for the contemplated separation action for misconduct, the type of discharge he could receive and its effect on further enlistment or reenlistment, the possible effects of this discharge, and of the procedures/rights available to him. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. He acknowledged that he: * understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were issued to him * understood he could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under Federal and State laws as a result of the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions * understood if he received a discharge characterization of less than honorable, he could make an application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the ABCMR for an upgrade, but he understood that an act of consideration by either board did not imply his discharge would be upgraded e. Subsequent to this acknowledgement and consultation with counsel, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him for drug abuse rehabilitation failure. His chain of command recommended approval. f. On 2 February 1984, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 9, with his service characterized as general under honorable conditions. The applicant was discharged accordingly on 8 February 1984. g. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged for drug abuse - rehabilitation failure with a separation code of JPC, under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 9, with his service characterized as general, under honorable conditions. He completed, a. 10 months, and 8 days of active service and he had lost time from 19 January 1986 to 27 January 1986. h. On 6 March 1990, Army Discharge Review board (ADRB) upgraded his discharge to Honorable. 4. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 9 contains the authority and outlines the procedures for discharging Soldiers because of alcohol or other drug abuse. 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 reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined that relief was not warranted. Based upon the clear statements within the service record by command leadership stating they are convinced, by lack of motivation and other factors, rehabilitation will not result in any future service, the Board concluded that there is insufficient evidence to show that an error or injustice which would warrant changing the narrative reason for separation. 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. 5/23/2019 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. AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a states 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 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 9 contains the authority and outlines the procedures for discharging Soldiers because of alcohol or other drug abuse. A member who has been referred to the Army Drug and Alcohol Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) for alcohol/drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical. Nothing in this chapter prevents separation of a Soldier who has been referred to such a program under any other provisions of this regulation. Initiation of separation proceedings is required for Soldiers designated as alcohol/drug rehabilitation failures. The service of Soldiers discharged under this chapter will be characterized as honorable or general under honorable conditions unless the Soldier is in entry-level status and an uncharacterized description of service is required. However, an honorable discharge is required if restricted-use information was used. 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 1. 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.