ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 June 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170011659 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of his previous request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: he submits a DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record). 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 AR1999026005 on 5 August 1999. 2. The applicant states he had no luck with his previous request for a discharge upgrade. After 30 years, he continues to feel that he was misled by the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) officer. If he was not, he would like records for legal action. He is just fed up with this discharge hanging over him. He was accused of attempted assault, but after dragging him through hell, the alleged victim did not want to pursue the case. The CID officer later had he sign statements that later ruined him. 3. Review of the applicant’s military record shows: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 July 1985. He was promoted to E-4 on 3 December 1986. He served in Germany from 4 December 1985 to 4 April 1988. b. His available records contain the following: (1) Request for Discharge for the Good of Service memorandum, dated 3 March 1988, wherein after consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. He acknowledged he understood: * the elements of the offense(s) charged against him and he was guilty of the charge(s) against him or of a lesser offense(s) therein contained which also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge * * he could be discharged under conditions other than honorable and the results of the issuance of such a discharge * he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered under both Federal and State law and could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of his discharge * he waived his rights and elected not submit a statement in his own behalf (2) Request for Discharge for the Good of the Service memorandum, dated 9 March 1988, wherein the separation authority directed his discharge and the issuance of an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. (3) DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty) showing he was discharged, in pay grade E-1, on 5 April 1988, accordingly. The form also shows he completed 2 years, 8 months, and 6 days of net active service and his service was characterized as under other than honorable conditions. The form further shows he was awarded or authorized the: * Army Superior Unit Award * Army Service Ribbon * Overseas Service Ribbon * Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16) * Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar c. On 2 April 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that he was properly and equitably discharged and denied his petition for a change in the character and/or reason of his discharge. d. On 5 August 1999, the ABCMR determined that there was no evidence of error or injustice in his separation process and denied his petition for a discharge upgrade. 4. By regulation (AR 635-200), an individual who has committed an offense or offenses, the punishment for which, includes an undesirable discharge, may submit a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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. 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 guidance for consideration of discharge upgrade requests to the complete evidentiary record and did not find any evidence of error, injustice, or inequity. The Board considered the applicant's request, his service record, the absence of charges, the reason for separation and clemency. The applicant did not provide character witness statements or evidence of post-service achievements in support of a clemency determination. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board agreed that the applicant's discharge characterization was warranted as a result of the misconduct and not in error or unjust. 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 AR1999026005 on 5 August 1999. 6 July 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. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): Not Applicable REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The regulation stated in: a. Paragraph 3-7a (Honorable Discharge) – an honorable discharge was a separation with honor. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. b. Paragraph 3-7b (General Discharge) – a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory, but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Chapter 10 – an individual who had committed an offense or offenses, the punishment for which included an undesirable discharge, could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service. A discharge under other than honorable conditions normally was appropriate for a Soldier who was discharged for the good of the service; however, the separation authority could direct a General Discharge Certificate, if such was merited by the Soldier’s overall record during the current enlistment. 2. 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//