ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 June 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170014498 APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade of his general discharge. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Promotion Certificate * three Army Achievement Medal (AAM) Certificates * Certificate of Commendation * four Training certificates * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge 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. After serving honorably, he reenlisted and requested a change in his military occupational specialty (MOS). During his training, he missed a couple of weekend formations not associated with training. He was then severely reprimanded and reduced to pay grade E-3. Due to the severity of the reprimand, he made a bad decision and became disillusioned with the Army and requested separation. He was separated and he was unsure of how the misconduct – pattern of misconduct would affect his current employment prospects. b. He served in the Army with distinction for over 3 years. He reenlisted and was promoted to the rank/pay grade of sergeant (SGT)/E-5 while serving with the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, KY. When he reenlisted, he changed his MOS, and had to go to Fort Sill, OK, for advanced individual training (AIT). This is where the trouble began for him. He was placed in a training battalion with a platoon of recruits that had just completed basic training. c. His demotions were the result of not showing up for work on a weekend that no training was scheduled. He was demoted from E-5 to E-4 on one day by the battalion commander and on the next day to E-3 by the battery commander. He never denied that he missed those formations, but he always felt that he was being treated unfairly. After his demotions, he asked about being separated from the Army early. He forgets what exactly occurred, but he was discharged shortly after. d. It has been over 30 years since all of this occurred. Recently, he needed a copy of his DD Form 214 for a potential employer. For all the good shown on this document, what stands out is at the bottom where it states misconduct – pattern of misconduct. In 1984, he deserved this, now it does not seem fair to imply that he was a screw-up during his entire period of service. He is proving copies of the awards, training, and commendation certificates he received. His DD Form 214 only lists one AAM when he was awarded a total of three (two while with the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment and one with the 101st Airborne Division). He would really like an honorable discharge to hang on the wall with some of his other stuff, but mostly he would like to show his DD Form 214 without having to try and explain the misconduct of a 22 years old some 30 years ago. 3. Review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 16 March 1981. He completed AIT and was awarded MOS 13F (Fire Support Specialist) on 10 June 1981. He served in Germany from 29 June 1981 to 28 December 1982. b. He provides his: * AAM Certificate, dated 4 August 1982, awarded for meritorious achieving during the Horse Artillery Shoot IV from 25 to 29 June 1982 * AAM Certificate, dated 18 October 1982, awarded for meritorious service from 2 July to 24 December 1982 * Air Assault School Training Certificate, dated 10 March 1983 * Certificate of Commendation, dated 30 August 1983, awarded for exceptionally meritorious service from 13 June to 8 August 1983 c. He reenlisted in the RA on 16 September 1983, for training in MOS 15D (Hawk Missile Crewmember). d. He also provides his: * Certificate of Promotion showing his promotion to SGT/E-5 on 3 February 1984 * Battalion Combat Team Training Certificate, dated 15 March 1984 * Army Infantry Company Amphibious Training Certificate, dated 13 April 1984 * Jungle Warfare Training Course Certificate, dated 24 May 1984 * AAM Certificate, dated 13 June 1984, awarded for exceptionally commendable service from 12 December 1982 to 12 June 1984 e. On 6 July 1984, he was assigned to the 7th Training Battery, U.S. Army Field Artillery Training Center, Fort Sill, for training in MOS 15D. f. He received counseling on/for: * 16 July 1984 – being absent without leave from duty * 18 July 1984 – missing formation and unbecoming conduct * 19 July 1984 –missing physical training (PT) formation * 22 July 1984 – missing PT formation and previous counseling for same action g. He accepted nonjudicial punishment on/for: * 23 July 1984 – failing to go to his appointed place of duty, PT formation, on 14, 15, and 19 July, 1984; his punishment included a reduction to E-4 * 24 July 1984 – failing to go to his appointed place of duty, PT formation, on 22 July 1984; his punishment included a reduction to E-3 h. He received counseling on/for: * 24 July 1984 – a negative attitude and separation from the Army * 14 August 1984 – displaying a pattern of misconduct by missing five battery formations, purposely failing out of the 15D course, and initiation of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, separation action for misconduct * 15 August 1984 – pending chapter 14 discharge i. On 15 August 1984, the applicant’s immediate commander notified him of proposed separation action under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct. He stated the reasons for the applicant’s separation was his blatant disregard for his duties by repeatedly missing or being late for formation, repeatedly stating that he wanted to be discharged and his misconduct would continue until he was discharged, and purposely failing a test in order to get out of the Army. He advised the applicant of his rights. j. On 15 August 1984, after consulting with counsel, he acknowledged he was advised of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him for misconduct. He waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. k. On 24 August 1984, the applicant’s chain of command recommended approval of the applicant’s discharge. l. On 30 August 1984, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. m. On 7 September 1984, he was discharged from active duty, in pay grade E-3, under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 12-14, for Misconduct – Pattern of Misconduct. He completed 3 years, 5 months, and 22 days of active service. His service was characterized as under honorable conditions (general). His DD Form 214 shows he was awarded/authorized: * Air Assault Badge * Army Achievement Medal * Army Service Ribbon * Overseas Service Ribbon * Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16) * Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Hand Grenade Bar 4. By regulation (AR 635-200), action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that despite attempts to rehabilitate him or develop him or her as a satisfactory Soldier, further effort is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under AR 635-200, chapter 14-12b. 5. 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. 6. By regulation, award of the Army Achievement Medal requires a formal recommendation, approval by through the chain of command, and announcement in orders. 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 partial relief was warranted. Based upon the statement of the applicant at the time of the separation saying his bad behavior would continue until he is separated, as well as a lack of character evidence submitted by the applicant to show he has learned and grown from the events leading to his discharge, the Board concluded that the characterization of service received at the time of separation was appropriate. However, the Board did note that the applicant had a period of prior honorable service which was not currently reflected on his DD Form 214 and recommended that change be made to more accurately depict the military service of the applicant. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF X X X GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by adding the following additional statement to block 18 (Remarks) of his DD Form 214: “Continuous honorable active service from 16 March 1981 until 15 September 1983.” 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to upgrading the characterization of his discharge. 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, provided 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 member'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. Chapter 14 -12b – members were subject to separation for misconduct when it was clearly established that despite attempts to rehabilitate and/or develop him or her as a satisfactory Soldier, further effort was unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b. 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 (BCMNRs) regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence and BCMNRs 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, BCMNRs 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. 4. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the Army Achievement Medal is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States, who while serving in a noncombat area on or after 1 August 1981, distinguished themselves by meritorious service or achievement. As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170014498 6 1