ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 16 May 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170003601 APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 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, in effect, he requested leave when his mother was diagnosed with a terminal illness due to kidney failure. Once he got home, he realized that he was going to need more time. He called his unit, spoke to his commander and requested convalescent leave, which he states the commander approved. He voluntarily turned himself in after he found out he was considered absent without leave (AWOL). In addition, he was told by his JAG officer that his discharge would change to honorable after six months. 3. A review of the applicant's service records show: a. He enlisted in the Army on 2 February 1995. b. His duty status changed as follows: * from present for duty (PDY) to absent without leave (AWOL), effective 9 September 2001 * from AWOL to PDY, effective 11 September 2001 * from PDY to AWOL, effective 16 September 2001 * from AWOL to DFR, effective 16 October 2001 * c. DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 22 October 2001, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for two specifications of being AWOL from 9 September 2001 until 11 September 2001 and from 16 September 2001 until 19 June 2003. d. It is unknown the exact date in which the applicant consulted with legal counsel. He was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and the procedures and rights that were available to him. Subsequent to receiving legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge under the provision of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged his understanding that: * by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge against him, or of a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of an undesirable discharge * he acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request was approved he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws * he was advised he could submit any statements he desired in his own behalf; he did not submit any statements e. The separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge on 10 August 2003, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court- martial, and directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and discharged under other than honorable conditions. He completed 6 years, 8 months, and 25 days of active service and he had lost time from 9 September 2001 to 11 September 2001 and from 16 September 2001 to 19 June 2003. 4. By regulation, a member who has committed an offense for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 5. The U. S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable. 1. 6. The Board should consider the applicant's submissions 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 relief was not warranted. Based upon the lengthy AWOL offense which led to the discharge and the lack of character evidence presented by the applicant to show he has learned and grown from the events leading the 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. 5/23/2019 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 Personnel), sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a provides that 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 provides that 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 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 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, 1. 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.