ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  16 July 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20170014088


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  an upgrade to gain eligibility for account with United Service Automobile Association (USAA) 

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)
* DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II)

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 in order to obtain a United States Automobile Association (USAA) account, her characterization of service would need to be upgraded to an honorable on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

3.  The applicant provides her DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) which is used to keep track her military information and provides information such as classification and assignment data, awards and decorations, training, education and military schools.

4.  A review of the applicant’s service record shows:

	a.  She enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 May 1978.

	b.  She had continuous honorable service from 23 May 1978 to 24 February 1982 and 25 February 1982 to 6 January 1985.

	c.  On 12 June 1986, her immediate commander notified her of his intent to initiate separation action against her in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 14, in effect at the time for misconduct, commission of a serious offense, after receiving a positive result on a urinalysis test for marijuana.

	d.  On 12 June 1986, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander’s intent to separate her.  Subsequently, she consulted with legal counsel, did not submit statements on her own behalf, however, she requested consideration of her case to be heard by an administrative separation board.  She acknowledged that she could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions or a discharge under other than honorable conditions is issued to her.

	e.  Subsequent to the applicant's acknowledgement and consultation with counsel, on 24 July 1986, her immediate commander initiated separation action against her under the provisions of chapter 14 of AR 635-200 due to misconduct, commission of a serious offense and recommended a general discharge.

	f.  On 29 October 1986, the board convened to determine whether the member should be separated for misconduct (use of marijuana).  The administrative board considered all the evidence and found the applicant was undesirable for further retention in the military due to her misconduct, abuse of illegal drugs.  The board recommended issuance of a general discharge certificate.

	g.  The applicant was discharged on 30 January 1987.  Her DD Form 214 shows she was discharged for misconduct with a general, under honorable conditions characterization of service.  She completed 8 years, 8 months and 8 days of net active service.  It also shows she was awarded or authorized:

* Army Achievement Medal with 1st Award
* Army Good Conduct Medal with 2nd Award
* Army Service Ribbon
* NCO Professional Development Ribbon with Numeral Two
* Overseas Service Ribbon
* Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar
* Parachute Badge

5.  By regulation (AR 635-200), action will be taken to separate a soldier for misconduct because of commission of a serious offense.  Normally, soldiers separating for misconduct, the characterization of service is under other than honorable conditions.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record.

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 reviewing the application and all supporting documents, to include the DoD guidance on liberal consideration when reviewing discharge upgrade requests, the Board determined that relief was warranted.  Based upon the lengthy period of honorable service prior to the one time drug offense and a lack of evidence showing the applicant had an opportunity to rehabilitate, the Board concluded that upgrading the characterization of service to Honorable was appropriate.

BOARD VOTE:
Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

X	X	X	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:	:	:	DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the applicant a DD Form 214 showing his characterization of service as Honorable.
	 
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, provides for 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 soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any characterization would be clearly in appropriate.

	b.  Chapter 14-12c of this regulation provides procedures for separating personnel for misconduct due a commission of a serious offense.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record.

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 regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations.  Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence and BCMRs may grant clemency regardless of the court-martial forum.  However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds.  The 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 on the basis of equity, an injustice, or clemency grounds, BCMRs shall consider the twelve stated principles in the guidance as well as eighteen individual factors related to an applicant.  These factors include the severity of the misconduct and the length of time since the misconduct.


ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20170014088


4


1