ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 June 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170001703 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of his earlier request for an upgrade of his general discharge to honorable. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * Self-Authored Statement * High School Diploma (Charles E. Chadsey High School) * Army Europe Form 3196 (Military Test Report) * DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) * Post Military Service Achievement Listing (X___ – 23 September 1969 until Present) * Letter of Commendation, (Mr. X___, Tour III Superintendent), (United States Post Office), dated 13 January 1975 * Letter – Exemplary Service, (Mr. X___, Postmaster), (United States Post Office), dated 3 December 1974 * Resolution – 65th Annual Michigan State Convention, National Association of Postal Supervisors, (undated) * Certificate of Appreciation, (Mr. X___, Vice President-Great Lakes), (United States Postal Service), dated 19 September 1997 * Incentive Award, dated 4 September 2002 * Letter of Appreciation, (Mr. X___, Manager-IPS), (United States Postal Service), dated 4 November 2003 * Vice-President Special Achievement Award, (Ms. X___, Senior Plant Manager), (United States Postal Service-Detroit, MI), dated 11 October 2002 * Certificate of Appreciation, (Ms. X___, Senior Plan Manager), (United States Postal Service-Detroit, MI), dated 23 September 2001 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 AC80-03529 on 28 May 1980, AR20090006701 on 15 October 2009, AR20100012758 on 12 October 2010, AR20100026613 on 21 April 2011, and AR20150016704 on 18 July 2016. 1. 2. The applicant states to this point he had not the opportunity to review, or even know of records used in making decisions based on his request. He states the explanations rendered by ABCMR, outside of regulations, has not explained why a single day in his military tenure could reflect his entire service as general, and not honorable, in light of documentation stating the latter. He asked that the new evidence submitted is used in making an assessment of his character as a member of the U.S. Army and to refute the unsatisfactory conduct and efficiency ratings issue on 23 September 1969. He further states his conduct and efficiency were never questioned while serving in the U.S. Army and that her received excellent ratings in conduct and efficiency from 25 March 1968 to 31 July 1969. The applicant contends the favorable ratings served as testament of his faithful and honorable service and that the unsatisfactory rating received on 23 September 1969 is unsupported. He does understand the detention while in service was not conducive to good order and discipline, and it did not accurately reflect his full character of service. The enclosed DA Form 20 supports his claim of “no disciplinary” action during his tenure of service. The manner in which his records are tainted has bothered him for over 47 years. It is important that he shows he is not the individual depicted by the general discharge, nor the poor evaluations rendered by his superiors for a crime he claims he did not commit. 3. The applicant service records shows the following: a. He was inducted into the Army of the United States on 25 March 1968. b. He served in Germany from 8 September 1968 to 31 July 1969. He did not receive credit for normal tour completion. c. While assigned to Selfridge Air Force Base, MI, the applicant submitted a request for a hardship discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 6 for reasons of hardship. d. The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not contained in the available records. e. In a letter dated 23 September 1969, Subject: Conduct and Efficiency Ratings, the applicant’s commanding officer rated his conduct as unsatisfactory for being detained by civil authorities on 15 September 1969. He was charged with shooting into a police station with a pellet gun and destroying property. His commanding officer also rated his efficiency as unsatisfactory because of the applicant’s ineptness in accomplishing even the simplest of duties. Also, the commanding officer stated that the applicant’s attitude, personal appearance and general military bearing were poor while assigned to Headquarters Battery, 28th Artillery Group (Air Defense), Selfridge Air Force Base, MI. a. f. On 23 September 1969, the applicant’s commanding officer recommended disapproval of the Army Good Conduct Medal in the remarks section of DA Form 137 (Installation Clearance Record). g. On 23 September 1969, his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows that the applicant was released from active duty and transferred to United States Army Reserves (USAR) under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 6 for reasons of hardship. He was issued a general discharge after completing 1 year, 5 months and 29 days of active service with 10 months and 24 days of foreign service. His DD Form 214 also shows he was awarded or authorized: National Defense Service Medal. 4. On 28 May 1980 and 15 October 2009, the ABCMR denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his general discharge to honorable and award of the Army Good Conduct Medal. On several occasions between the period 27 August 1980 and 18 July 2016, the applicant has submitted requests for reconsideration, however, the requests were not considered by the Board because they lacked new evidence. 5. By AR 635-200, Chapter 6, enlisted members of the Active Army and the Reserve Components serving on Active Duty AD or ADT may be discharged or released (para 6- 10), because of genuine dependency or hardship. 6. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition, his statements, and available service record, in light of the published Department of Defense guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency. 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 not warranted. Based upon the relatively short term of service completed prior to the serious and dangerous misconduct leading to his 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. 6/13/2019 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. Army Regulation (AR) 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 (Honorable Discharge) 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 (General Discharge) 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. 3. AR 635-200, paragraph 6-4, states Soldiers of the Active Army and the Reserve Components may be discharged or released because of genuine dependency or hardship: a. Dependency exists when because of death or disability of a member of the enlisted person's family, other members of his family become principally dependent upon him for care or support. b. Hardship exists when in circumstances not involving death or disability of a member of the enlisted person's family, his separation from the Service will materially affect the care or support of his family by alleviating undue and genuine hardship. 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 (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 1. 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.