ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 June 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170003557 APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade to his general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) 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 his discharge was unequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 28 months of service with no other adverse action. 3. A review of the applicant’s service record show the following: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 31 March 1981. b. He reenlisted in the RA on 13 December 1983. c. He served in Germany from 10 December 1981 to 2 December 1984. d. On 27 June 1985, his immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation under the provisions of AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14 for abuse of illegal drugs with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant acknowledged notification of separation on 27 June 1985. e. On 27 June 1985, his immediate commander recommended separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14 section III acts or patterns of misconduct, commission of a serious offense. Separation is specifically recommended for abuse of illegal drugs. a. f. On 2 July 1985, he was advised by his consulting counsel of the bases for the contemplating action to separate him for misconduct under AR 635-200, Chapter 14 and its effects; of the rights available to him; and the effects of any action taken by him in waiving his rights. He understood if he had less than six years total of active and reserve military service at the time of separation and he was being considered for separation for misconduct under AR 635-200, Chapter 14, he is not entitled to have his case heard by an administrative separation board. g. On 19 July 1985, the applicant received a letter of reprimand for testing positive for cocaine. The letter further stated that drug and alcohol abuse are incompatible with the standard expected of a noncommissioned officer (NCO). h. On 31 July 1985, his intermediate commander recommended discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12d(1) for abuse of illegal drugs. i. On 2 August 1985, his immediate commander recommended that the letter of reprimand be filed in his official military personnel file. The applicant acknowledged the reprimand on 2 August 1985. j. On 6 August 1985, the separation authority approved separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14-2b for pattern of misconduct with the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. k. His was discharged from active duty on 19 August 1985. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that he was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200 paragraph 14-12b, and 14-12d. Item 26 (narrative reason) shows misconduct-pattern of misconduct; abuse of illegal drugs. It also shows that he served on active duty for 4 years, 4 months and 19 days. He was awarded or authorized: * Army Service Ribbon * Overseas Service Ribbon * Army Achievement Medal * Parachute Badge * Expert Infantryman Badge * Expert-Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M16) * Good Conduct Medal 4. By regulation, AR 635-200 establishes policy and prescribe procedures for separating personnel for misconduct because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, and absence without leave. 1. 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, to include the DoD guidance on liberal consideration when reviewing discharge upgrade requests, the Board determined that partial relief was warranted. Based upon the illegal drug offenses and the applicant already receiving a general discharge, as well as the lack of character evidence submitted by the applicant to show that he has learned and grown from the events leading to his discharge, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice which would warrant making a change to the characterization of service. However, the Board did note that the applicant had a prior period of honorable service which was not currently reflected on his DD Form 214 and recommended that change be completed to more accurately depict his military service. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF X X X GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by adding the following additional statement to block 18 (Remarks) of his DD Form 214: “Continuous honorable active service from 31 March 1981 until 12 December 1983.” 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to upgrading the characterization of his discharge. 6/28/2019 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. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Separations) 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 14 of that regulation states members are subject to separation for a pattern of misconduct consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. 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 1. might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization.