ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 June 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170011845 APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade to his under honorable conditions, general 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: a. He was young, immature and made mistakes that were not serious in nature, but he have learned, as well as grown from them. He was only recently informed that the general under honorable conditions discharge were capable of being upgraded to an honorable discharge 6 months after my discharge. b. He is a student working on his Master’s degree in social work and his recent internship was with San Antonio Metropolitan Ministry homeless veterans services in San Antonio, TX. The experience he gained from the internship was in preparation to work for the Veterans Affair housing and Urban Development Veterans Administration Supportive Housing Program, post-graduation, (spring 2018). He would like the Board to please consider granting his request and upgrade his discharge to an honorable 3. The applicant’s service record shows: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 April 1986. b. He received three counseling’s on various offenses, disrespect to a noncommissioned officer (NCO), sleeping on guard duty, and the commander’s intent to impose a bar to reenlistment. c. He accepted nonjudicial punishment on/for: * 10 April 1988, for being disrespectful in language to a noncommissioned officer (NCO), his punishment in part was reduction to E-1 * 7 July 1988, for derelict in the performance of duties and failing to stay awake while on duty * 14 December 1988, for disobeyed a lawful order from a NCO and failure to be at the appointed place of duty, his punishment in part was reduction to E-1 d. A Bar to Reenlistment Certificate recommendation was submitted on 12 January 1989 for disrespect to an NCO, dereliction of duties, and absent from his place of duty. e. On 23 January 1989, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14-12b, for pattern of misconduct. f. On 25 January 1989, he consulted with legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him for misconduct under AR 635-200, chapter 14. He acknowledged: * the rights available to him and the effect of waiving said rights * the right to have his case heard by an administrative separation board * the right to submit a statement in his own behalf * he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if general discharge under honorable conditions is issued * he would be ineligible to apply for enlistment in the Army for a period of two years after discharge g. On 26 January 1989, his immediate commander initiated the recommendation to separate him under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for patterns of misconduct. He recommended a general under honorable conditions discharge. h. Consistent with the chain of command recommendations on 8 February 1989, the separation authority approved the request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for acts or patterns of misconduct. He directed he be issued a general under honorable conditions discharge certificate. i. The applicant was discharged from active duty on 8 March 1989 under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for misconduct, SPD JKM. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows his characterization is under honorable conditions, general. He completed 2 years, 10 months and 17 days of active service this period. He had no lost time. 4. By regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a member whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Paragraph 14-3 states that an under other than honorable conditions certificate is normally appropriate for a member discharged under this chapter. 5. By regulation 635-5-1 (Personnel Separations-Separation Program Designators), members are subject to, separation code JKM is appropriate when the narrative reason for discharge is separation for misconduct – pattern of misconduct. 6. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicants 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 pattern of misconduct which led to the applicant’s discharge, 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. 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. AR 635-200, in effect at the time, provides for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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 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. 3. AR 635-5-1 states that the separation program designator (SPD) code is used in statistical accounting to represent the reason for separation. 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170011845 4 1