ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:  23 July 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20170014302



APPLICANT REQUESTS:  upgrade his under other than honorable conditions to a general discharge.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

* DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
* DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty)
* Self-Authored Statement
* DD Form 214, dated 21 September 1973
* DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty)

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 is an American that grew up in the United Kingdom (UK), at the age of 17 he joined the U.S. Army.  He was stationed in Germany (1973–1976) and at the rank of E-4 he received an Honorable Discharge and requested a European Out as home of record was the UK.  He found it difficult to re-adjust to civilian life and find employment.  After a discussion with his girlfriend they decided they could benefit from a reenlistment with the prospects of getting married and setting up a home.  He reenlisted in 1978 and the Army sent him to the US for training as a communication specialist.  Half way through the training he received a “Dear John” letter and realized that all the planning for a future together and the reason for the reenlistment were now null and void.  After training he was stationed in Fort Campbell, KY, attached to the 101st Airborne Division.  The jilting of the girlfriend had affected him far more deeply than he realized at the time and he went to the unit commander to request a transfer to Germany as that was as close to the UK as he could get.  The request was denied with a comment that as the military occupation specialty was critical and any further requests for transfer would not be successful.  Knowing his next action would have serious consequences he went absent without leave (AWOL) and returned to the UK.  He reflected on his life to date, this was his darkest period.  He is not one to generally break the rules but at that age he was headstrong in his convictions.  While in the UK he phoned the company headquarters and spoke to the first sergeant.  He said if he returned he would be spending time in Leavenworth so he now thought he knew what was waiting for him.  

	b.  The stress and strain of this period had almost fatal consequences as he tried to take his own life and it was while he was in the hospital that he handed over his Military ID card to the British police.  He even suggested they contact the US Air Force Police at High Wycombe Air Base.  Once recovered, he was handed over to the Air Force Police at High Wycombe and on his own recognizance returned to the United States.  He was met at the New York airport by military police and taken to a holding cell.  He was transferred to Fort Dix, NJ for processing out (which was a surprise to him since he was expecting the worst).  He states at this time he was busted to PVT and given an “other than honorable discharge.”  Whether it was embarrassment or shame, he never related what he had gone through leading up to his absence and therefore he is asking for help to review his situation and maybe see fit to change the status to a general discharge.  Time heals all wounds and writing this request has certainly helped in changing the dark time to a slightly lighter time in the past.

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

	a.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 September 1973 and held a tank turret mechanic military occupational specialty (MOS).  He served in Germany from 6 May 1974 to 10 September 1976. 

	b.  He was honorably released from active duty on 20 September 1976.  He was issued a DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) that credited him with 3 years of active service. 

	c.  After a break in service, he again enlisted in the RA on 19 September 1978.  He held MOS 72E (Telecommunications Center Operator).  

	d.  On 14 February 1979, he was reported AWOL, and on 14 March 1979, he was dropped from the rolls. 

	e.  According to Form 691A (Personnel Control Facility Interview Sheet), the applicant surrendered himself to authorities.  The interview states the applicant hated his duty location, his job assignment and the people he worked with.  He requested a transfer but was told it was impossible at the time because it would mean another change of duty station in the same fiscal year.  He then requested a discharged from the Army “because he wanted out and to return to England.”  The request was denied, about 2 weeks later he decided the hell with everything and went AWOL.
	f.  The DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 4 June 1979, court-martial charges were preferred against him for one specification of AWOL from 14 February 1979 to 22 May 1979.

	g.  Following consultation with counsel, he requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request for discharge, he indicated:

* he was making this request of his own free will and he had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person
* he understood that by requesting discharge he was admitting guilt to the charges against him or of a lesser-included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge
* he acknowledge that under no circumstances did he desire further rehabilitation, and no desire to perform further military service
* he acknowledged he understood if his discharge request was approved he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration
* he acknowledged he understood he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws
* he elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf

	h.  On 13 June 1979, his chain of command recommended that he be discharged for the good of the service and receive a character of service under other than honorable conditions.

	i.  On 5 July 1979, consistent with the chain of command's recommendation, the separation authority approved his request for discharge and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge and a reduction in rank to the lowest enlisted grade prior to separation.

	j.  On 26 November 1979, the applicant was discharged.  His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was discharged in accordance with chapter 10 of AR 635-200, for the good of the service - conduct triable by court martial, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  He completed 7 months of active service with lost time from 14 February 1979 to 21 May 1979.  He was awarded or authorized Driver Badge and Mechanic Badge with Bar National Defense Service Medal.

	k.  There is no evidence the applicant has applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

4.  By regulation, a member who has committed an offense or offenses, the punishment for any of which, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts-Martial, includes a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, may submit a request for discharge for the good of the Service.  

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 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 not warranted.  Based upon the short term of honorable service completed prior to a lengthy AWOL offense, the Board concluded that the characterization of service received at the time of separation was appropriate.

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.  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 1-13a (Honorable Discharge) provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  Issuance of an honorable discharge certificate is predicated upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member’s current enlistment or period of obligated service with due consideration for the member’s age, length of service, grade, and general aptitude.

   b.  Paragraph 1-13b (General Discharge) provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  It is issued to a member whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  The recipient of a general discharge is normally a member whose military record and performance is satisfactory.  The member may have had frequent non-judicial punishments but not for serious infractions.

	c.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses, the punishment for any of which, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Revised Edition), includes a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service.  The provisions of the Table of Maximum Punishments, Section B, paragraph 127c MCM 1969 (Rev) are not applicable to requests for discharge pursuant to this chapter.  The request for discharge may be submitted at any time after court-martial charges are preferred against the member, regardless of whether the charges are referred to a court-martial and regardless of the type of court-martial to which the charges may be referred.  The request for discharge may be submitted at any stage in the processing of the charges until final action on the case by the court-martial convening authority.

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.

	
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20170014302


5


1