ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 May 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170001828 APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade of his under other than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Personnel Control Facility Interview Sheet with Self Authored Statement (FDCF Form 691A) 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 guaranteed an accompanied assignment due to the length of the military occupational specialty (MOS) training at Fort Sam Houston, TX (91A & 91C) and that he had a wife and two children. He never received orders to go to Fort Sam Houston, TX or any subsequent contact from the 455th General Hospital Reserve Unit nor did he move his residence during the period he was declared absent without leave (AWOL). He surrendered to the Military Police when he was contacted, and held at a Navy base for a day before being transferred to Fort Devens, MA, to have this matter resolved. He was sent to Fort Dix, NJ, and assigned to a Personnel Control Facility (PCF) where little effort or interest to resolve the matter. He was simply considered guilty and the principle concern for the PCF staff was their performance of ground and facility maintenance, rather than any form of justice or inquiry. No effort was used to verify his situation, they simply processed forms. He was told he could be processed out and return home or remain at the PCF and await an opportunity for a hearing. After a lengthy time in containment, he made what he thought the obvious choice was, because that’s how it seemed to be designed. Faced with family needs, no income, and a very frightening environment, he accepted the discharge. He joined his reserve unit to become a medic after transferring from a Military Police unit with an honorable discharge. He was assured his training assignment would allow his family to accompany him, with government housing provided. The Adjutant of the unit and staff informed him he would be placed in a control group for future assignment. He has not pursued resolution to this matter for many reasons. 3. A review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. His DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document) reflects he enlisted on 1 October 1980 in the Army National Guard (ARNG). b. His NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) reflects he was honorably separated from the ARNG on 23 July 1986 and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) 455th General Hospital. He served 5 years, 9 months, and 23 days of service. c. His DD Form 4 reflects that he reenlisted on 24 July 1986 into the U.S. Army Reserves (USAR). He entered active duty on the same date. d. His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) show she was enroute to Fort Sam Houston, TX on 28 October 1986 for training. It also show she was reported AWOL on 29 October 1986 e. His DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) indicates court marital charges were preferred on 2 December 1987. He was charged with one specification of AWOL for a period of 383 days from 29 October 1986 to 16 November 1987. f. He consulted with legal counsel on 2 December 1987 and subsequently requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service). He acknowledged: * the maximum punishment if found guilty * if his request was accepted, he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate * if approved, he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits * he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and that he may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a Veteran under both Federal and State law * he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an under other than honorable conditions discharge g. Consistent with the chain of command’s recommendation on 8 December 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service on 8 January 1988 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. h. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) reflects that on 15 February 1988, he was discharged from active duty under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10 (In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial) with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. He had 3 months and 18 days of active duty service. He had 383 days of lost time from 29 October 1986 to 15 November 1987. He was awarded or authorized: * Sharpshooter Marksmanship Badge with Rifle Bar (M16) * Expert Marksmanship Badge with Pistol Bar (.45 Cal) * Army Service Ribbon * Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal 4. By regulation (AR 635-200), an individual who has committed an offense or offenses, the punishment for which includes a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service. An under other than honorable conditions discharge will normally be furnished an individual who is discharged for the good of the 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 short term of service prior to an lengthy AWOL offense, as well as a lack of character evidence submitted by the applicant to show he has learned and grown from the event 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. Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separation – 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. 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 member whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Chapter 10 of this regulation states an individual who has committed an offense or offenses, the punishment for which includes a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service. An under other than honorable discharge certificate normally is appropriate for a member who is discharged for the good of the Service. However, the separation authority may direct a General Discharge Certificate, if such is merited by the member's overall record during the current enlistment. 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. Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170001828 4 1