ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:

	BOARD DATE:  17 June 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20170007111


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  reconsideration of his earlier request to an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge.

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).

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 AR20090010963 on 4 February 2010.

2.  The applicant states, as a young Soldier he did not make the proper decisions, he was immature and let the military down, as well as his command.  Since his unfortunate military service he has come forward and now realizes his mistakes from the past.  Over the years he has met many military personnel, he always encourages military personnel about honorably servicing.  He had intended to serve with honor but he let personal issues override the proper way of thinking.  He states he is older now and currently drawing medicare, he ask for prayer and reconsideration of his case.

3.  A review of the applicant’s service record shows:  
	a.  He was inducted into the Army of the United States on 5 December 1967.  

	b.  While in Germany from 14 April 1968 to 12 January 1969 he was discharged for immediate reenlistment on 11 September 1968.  He was issued a DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) that captured 9 months and 6 days of honorable service. 

	c.  On 15 April 1969, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 for being absent from his unit.  
	d.  On 12 June 1970, court-martial charges were preferred.  His DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) indicates he was charged with absence without leave from 18 November 1969 to 2 June 1970.

	e. On 15 June 1970, he consulted with legal counsel and subsequently requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel).  In his request he acknowledged: 
 
•	maximum punishment
•	he was guilty of the charge against him of a lesser included offense
•	he did not desire further rehabilitation or a desire to perform further military service
•	he understood if his discharge was accepted he could be separated with an under other than honorable conditions discharge and furnished an under other than honorable discharge certificate
•	if an under other than honorable conditions discharge was issued, he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits and that he may be ineligible for benefits by the Veterans Administration and benefits of a Veteran under Federal and State law

	f.  On 24 June 1970, consistent with the chain of command’s recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), and directed the applicant receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.  

	g.  On 24 June 1970, he was discharged from active duty.  His DD 214 for this period of service shows he was discharged in accordance with chapter 10 of AR       635-200, separation program number (SPN) 246; discharge for the good of the service, with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service.  He completed 1 year, 9 months, and 23 days of active service, with 203 days lost time.

4.  On 4 February 2010, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.

5.  By regulation, a member who has committed an offense or offenses, the punishment for any of 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 is normally appropriate for a member who is discharged for the good of the service.

6.  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, the Board determined there is insufficient evidence to grant relief.  The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered.  The Board applied Department of Defense standards of liberal consideration to the complete evidentiary record and did not find any evidence of error, injustice, or inequity.  He did not provide character witness statements or evidence of post-service achievements for the Board to consider.  Based upon the record, the Board agreed that the applicant's discharge characterization was warranted as a result of the misconduct.

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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20090010963 on 4 February 2010.


	 
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.



ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S):

Not Applicable

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, 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 1-13b (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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier's separation specifically allows such characterization.

	c.  Paragraph 10-1 (General) states a member who has committed an offense or offenses, the punishment for any of 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 discharge authority may direct an honorable or general discharge, if such are 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 regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations.  Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence and BCMRs may grant clemency regardless of the court-martial forum.  However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds.  The 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 on the basis of equity, an injustice, or clemency grounds, BCMRs shall consider the twelve stated principles in the guidance as well as eighteen individual factors related to an applicant.  These factors include the severity of the misconduct and the length of time since the misconduct.  
//NOTHING FOLLOWS//

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20170007111


3


1