ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


IN THE CASE OF: 
BOARD DATE: 21 June 2019 
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170009724

APPLICANT REQUESTS: his under honorable conditions (general) discharge be 
upgraded to an honorable discharge.

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 character of service should read honorable and not under 
honorable conditions (general). His discharge should read honorable discharge. It 
seems as though many Vietnam Veterans had this done to them.

3.	The applicant service records shows:

   a.	He enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 October 1969.

   b.	He served in Vietnam from 21 April 1970 to 19 March 1971. He received credit 
for a normal short tour.

   c.	On 22 June 1970, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the 
provisions of Article 15 for wrongful possession of another Solder’s personal property. 
His punishment include forfeiture of pay and reduction to private (PV2)/E-2, (suspended 
for 2 months).  His appeal of imposed punishment was denied on 19 July 1970
   




   d.	On 27 August 1970, he was convicted by Special Court-Martial of wrongfully and 
without authority wearing items on his uniform in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code 
of Military Justice (UCMJ). He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for three (3) 
months, reduction to private/(E-1), and forfeiture of $50.00 per month for four (4) 
months. His sentence of confinement at hard labor for three (3) months was suspended 
for six (6) months.  He was found not guilty of the specification in Charge 2.

   e.	On 28 October 1971, he accepted NJP for being absent without leave (AWOL) 
from 13 October 1971 to 26 October 1971.  His punishment included forfeiture of pay.

   f.	On 10 January 1972, the DA Form 2627-1 for violations and punishment imposed 
are not available for the Board to review.

   g.	On 18 January 1972, his punishment, in part of, reduction to private/(E-1) 
suspended for a period of three (3) months was vacated.

   h.	On 25 January 1972, the applicant departed AWOL. He was dropped from rolls 
and classified a deserter on 17 February 1972.  He returned to military control on
25 February 1972.

   i.	On 23 March 1972, the applicant was convicted by Summary Court-Martial on one 
specification of AWOL from 25 January 1972 to 23 February 1972.  He was sentenced 
to 60 days restriction (suspended for 60 days), and reduction to private/(E-1) 
(suspended for 60 days).

   j.	On or about 19 April 1972, the applicant requested an administrative 
determination under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 630-10 (Absence Without 
Leave, Desertion, and Administration of Personnel Involved in Civilian Court 
Proceedings), Section 5.

   k.	On 15 May 1972, in concert with the applicant’s chain of command, the approval 
authority granted the applicant’s waiver of lost time.

   l.	On 18 May 1972, the applicant was released from active duty with an under 
honorable conditions (general ) discharge and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserves in 
accordance with AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 
5-3. The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of 
Transfer or Discharge) shows he completed 2 years, 6 months and 6 days of active 
service with 31 days of lost time.  It also shows he was awarded or authorized:

*	National Defense Service Medal
*	Vietnam Service Medal
*	Vietnam Campaign Medal
*	Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14)





4.	By regulation/directive, AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), in 
effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

5.	In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition, his 
service record, and his statements in light of the published guidance on equity, injustice, 
or clemency.

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 short term of 
service completed prior to a pattern of misconduct, 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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned.


6/25/2019
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 1-9d (Honorable discharge) states an honorable discharge is a 
separation with honor. Issuance of an honorable discharge will be conditioned upon 
proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member’s current 
enlistment of current period of service with due consideration for the member’s age, 
length of service, grade, and general aptitude.

   b.	Paragraph 1-9e (General discharge) states a general discharge is a separation 
from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record is not 
sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

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.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//