ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:

	BOARD DATE:  31 July 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20170010954


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  an upgrade of his under other than honorable condition discharge.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

* DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States)
* DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* Self-Authored Memorandum, dated 5 April 2017
* College of Charleston – Scope of Maintenance Shop Work Orders
* 2014 Annual Program Supervisor Evaluation (March 2014 to March 2015)
* 2015 Annual Program Supervisor Evaluation (January 2015 to unlisted)
* Personal Reference Letter – Co-Worker (Ms. X___)
* Letter of Reference – Maintenance Control Manager (Ms. X___)

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 has accepted the mistakes he has made in life and his goal is to learn from them.  He blames no one other than himself for the actions he took to jeopardize his military career.  He has learned a valuable lesson and strives to do the right thing at all times.  Since his separation from the Army, he has served 22 plus years with the College of Charleston.  He has worked as an electrician and as a general maintenance shop supervisor.  He purchased a home in the year 2000, published a book of poetry in 2007, and is preparing to publish a second book of poetry soon.  He is an electrician, writes lyrics to various genres of music in addition to writing censored jokes.  Over the years, he has learn to rebuild engines and automatic transmissions.  His potential for the future is unlimited.  He has no set limitations s to what he can do in the near future.
3.  The applicant provided:

	a.  A detailed listing of normal work orders his general maintenance shop has responsibility to accomplish on a routine basis.  In his role as a working supervisor, the applicant has met or exceed the goals established for him in both 2015 and 2016.  He was rated as exceptional or superior in nearly all of the values and characteristics sub-areas.  His evaluations also indicate he achieved performance ratings of superior in required traits, supervisor traits, job duties and overall performance in 2015 and 2016.

	b.  Letters of reference from two of his co-workers that has known the applicant for 10 plus years.  They are both in agreement the he possesses qualities of being dependable, cooperative, respectful and always on time.  He has a great sense of initiative and a strong willpower.  He is extremely intelligent and a pleasure to work with.  He has excellent people skills, is a great communicator, personable, and earns respect.  He knows how to work smart, analyze situations and make sound decisions.  He has unlimited potential and will succeed in whatever the next phase of his life will bring.

4.  The applicant’s service records shows:

	a.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 October 1985.  He reenlisted on 30 March 1988 and 30 August 1990.

	b.  He served Panama from 18 December 1989 to 1 November 1990.  He received short tour credit.

	c.  On 10 April 1992, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant.  His DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) shows he was charged with the following specifications:

* two specifications of conspiring with two other Soldiers to make a false official statements
* two specifications of conspiring with two other Soldiers to wrongfully and unlawfully alter public records
* two specifications of conspiring with two other Soldiers with intent to deceive a civilian clerk at the evaluations section of the report’s validity

	d.  On 13 April 1992, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and subsequently requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 10.  In his request, he acknowledged:

* 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
* admission of guilt to the charges against him, or of a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a punitive discharge
* he understood that if his discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits
* he understood that 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 laws
* he also understood that he may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an undesirable discharge
* he elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf

	f.  On 5 May 1992, consistent with the chain of command’s recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The separation authority directed that the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

	h.  On 8 June 1992, the applicant was discharged from active duty.  He completed 
6 years, 7 months, and 9 days of active service.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  His DD Form 214 shows he was awarded or authorized:

* Army Commendation Medal
* Army Achievement Medal (3rd Award)
* Army Good Conduct Medal (2nd Award)
* National Defense Service Medal
* Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal
* Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon
* Army Service Ribbon
* Overseas Service Ribbon
* Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16)
* Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar

	i.  There is no evidence the applicant has applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

5.  By regulation, a member 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.

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 relief is not warranted.  The applicant’s contentions, letters of support, and post-service achievements 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 accepted responsibility for his actions and was remorseful for the events leading to his separation with his application.  Based upon the offenses of a criminal nature, the Board agreed that the applicant's discharge characterization was warranted as a result of the misconduct.

However, the Board did note that the applicant had a prior period of honorable service which is 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 30 October 1985 until 29 August 1990.”

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.
	 
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 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 general 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 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.  AR 635-8 (Separation Processing and Documents) establishes the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  It states for Soldiers who have previously reenlisted without being issued a DD Form 214 and who are later separated with any characterization of service except "honorable," enter in item 18 the entry "CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM" (first day of service which DD Form 214 was not issued) UNTIL (date before commencement of current enlistment)."  Then, enter the specific periods of reenlistments as prescribed above.

4.  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//

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20170010954


5


1