ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 July 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170013978 APPLICANT REQUESTS: a reconsideration of his previous request for an upgrade to his under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Senator of Alabama Letter * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Army Review Board Agency letter 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 AR20090003100 on 21 July 2009. 2. The applicant states when he was stationed in Panama, he started a new checking account. He believe it was with the American Express bank Panama City. Upon starting a new account, he forgot about one check that he wrote close to the closing date of the account. The check was for eleven dollars and thirty two cents. It was written for a cassette tape he ordered from a music company. Since the checking account was closed, the check was returned. His company commander said that he was irresponsible and a disgrace to the unit. He had never been in trouble and was an outstanding Soldier. He was also an outstanding trainee of his basic training and his advanced individual training (AIT) class and served honorably throughout Operations Just Cause, Desert Shield and Desert Storm. He was given the option of a court martial or Article 15 with a discharge. At 20 years old, the words court martial scared him to death, along with the possibility of marring his family’s good name and character. 3. The applicant provides: a. A letter from Senator X___ of Alabama, dated 17 August 2017, informing the Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) of the applicant’s desire to have his military records changed. b. His DD Form 214 showing his service from 13 February 1990 to 30 September 1991. c. His DD Form 215 showing a correction to his DD Form 214 ending 30 September 1991 which added his Southwest Asia Service Medal with Bronze Service Star. d. A program sequence of events, showing the applicant as the distinguished graduate with photographs. 4. A review of his service record shows: a. Having had prior service in the Army National Guard, he completed advanced individual training (ADT), he was awarded the military occupational specialty 55B (Ammunition Specialist) at Redstone Arsenal, AL. He was released from ADT on 9 December 1988, as per orders 231-4, dated 1 December 1988, to return to his unit 261st Ordnance Company, Charleston, WV on 9 December 1988. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 February 1990. b. His service record is void of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge and are not available for the Board to review. c. The applicant was discharged from active duty on 30 September 1991, under the provisions of Army Regulations (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trail by court-martial, Separation Program Designator (SPD) – KFS – for the good of the service. His DD Form 214 shows his characterization of service as under other than honorable conditions. He completed 1 year, 7 months and 18 days of net active service this period, and 1 year, 1 month and 20 days prior inactive service, he had no lost time. d. He was awarded or authorized the: * Army Service Ribbon * Overseas Service Ribbon * National Defense Service Medal * Parachutist Badge e. His DD Form 215 shows a correction to his DD Form 214 ending 30 September 1991, which added his Southwest Asia Service Medal with Bronze Service Star. f. On 21 July 2009, the Board considered his petition for an upgrade, but found no evidence of an error or an injustice and denied his request. 5. By regulation, a member who has committed an offense 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. 6. By regulation 635-5-1, (Personnel Separations – Separation Program Designators, paragraph 10, in lieu of trial by court martial are assigned the Separation Code KFS. 7. 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 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. The applicant contends his separation is related to a concern with a check written for a small amount of money. Based upon his voluntary request for discharge in lieu of court-martial, the Board determined he admitted guilt to a criminal offense in which his command preferred charges that could have resulted with a BCD; more likely not related to a small bounced check. Based on the relatively short term of honorable service completed prior to his offense of a criminal nature, as well as his failure to accept responsibility and show remorse for the events leading to his separation, 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20090003100 on 21 July 2009. 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. Army Regulation 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 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 (General discharge) 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. c. Chapter 10-1, provides that a Soldier 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. The discharge request may be submitted after court-martial charges are preferred against the Soldier or where required, after referral, until final action by the court-martial convening authority. 2. AR 635-5-1 states that the separation program designator (SPD) code is used in statistical accounting to represent the reason for separation. 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// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170013978 5 1