ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 June 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170011444 APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) 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 had over 10 years of honorable service and he reenlisted three times before he got a bad conduct discharge. Since then he has worked in the same job occupation for 15 years. He decided to go back to school and now has a new job. 3. A review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 April 1978 and he held military occupational specialty 54B (Chemical Operations Specialist). b. On 24 October 1988, he was convicted by Special Court-martial Order Number 47 for diverse occasions, between the dates of about 27 April 1988 to on or about 27 May 1988 to conspire to commit an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), to wit: Larceny of about 35 aluminum landing mats, of a value of about $5,871.25, the property of the U.S. Government. c. On 22 September 1988, the sentence was adjudged and the court found him guilty and sentenced him to reduction to the lowest enlisted grade of E-1 and a bad conduct discharge. a. d. On 10 January 1989, the convening authority approved the sentence, and except the bad conduct discharge, ordered the sentence executed. The record of trail was forward to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for appellate review. e. The U.S. Army Military Court of Review affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence. The U.S. Court of Military Appeals denied his petition for a grant of review. f. Special Court-Martial Order Number 19, issued by Headquarters, 5th Infantry Division (Mechanized) and Fort Polk, Louisiana on 20 April 1989 shows that after completion of all required post-trial and appellate reviews, the convening authority ordered the applicant's bad conduct discharge duly executed. g. The applicant was discharged on 4 May 1989. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged in the rank/grade of private/E-1 as a result of court-martial conviction in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 3, with a bad conduct discharge. He completed 11 years and 17 days of creditable active military service during this period. His DD Form 214 also shows he was awarded or authorized the: * Good Conduct Medal (3d Award) * Army of Occupation Medal * Army Service Ribbon * Overseas Service Ribbon 4. By regulation (AR 635-200), a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial. The appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. 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. 1. 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. However, the Board noted 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 18 April 1978 until 17 May 1984.” 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 provides 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. Paragraph 3-7c states a discharge under other than honorable conditions is an administrative separation from the service under conditions other than honorable. It may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or for the good of service in selected circumstances. d. Paragraph 3-11 states a member will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial. The appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. 3. AR 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct. a. The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the evidence that is presented in the military records provided and the independent evidence submitted with the application. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. b. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence or opinions. Additionally, it states in paragraph 2-11 that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. a. 4. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, provides that the Secretary of a Military Department may correct any military record of the Secretary's Department when the Secretary considers it necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice. With respect to records of courts-martial and related administrative records pertaining to court-martial cases tried or reviewed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, action to correct any military record of the Secretary's Department may extend only to correction of a record to reflect actions taken by reviewing authorities under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or action on the sentence of a court-martial for purposes of clemency. Such corrections shall be made by the Secretary acting through boards of civilians of the executive part of that Military Department. 5. DOD guidance, 25 July 2018, subject: Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military / Naval Records Regarding Equity. Injustice, or Clemency Determinations, provides standards for Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Boards for Correction of Military /Naval Records (BCM/NRs) in determining whether relief is warranted on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency. It states, in pertinent part: a. While not everyone should be pardoned, forgiven, or upgraded, in some cases, fairness dictates that relief should be granted. The Boards are trusted to apply this guidance and give appropriate consideration to every application for relief. b. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide DRBs and BCM/NRs in application of their equitable relief authority. Each case will be assessed on its own merits. The relative weight of each principle and whether the principle supports relief in a particular case, are within the sound discretion of each board. Relief is generally more appropriate for nonviolent offenses than for violent offenses. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, an injustice, or clemency grounds, DRBs and BCM/NRs should also consider, among other matters: • An applicant's candor • Severity of misconduct • Length of time since misconduct • Acceptance of responsibility, remorse, or atonement for misconduct • The degree to which the requested relief is necessary for the applicant • Character and reputation of applicant • Meritorious service in government or other endeavors • Evidence of rehabilitation and job history • Availability of other remedies • Whether misconduct may have been youthful indiscretion • Character references //NOTHING FOLLOWS//