ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 June 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170017595 APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade to his under other than honorable conditions discharge APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Self-authored letter * 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. At the time of the court-martial his understanding of the English language was poor at best. His counsel did not really argue his case since he was not able to effectively communicate with him. He requested a translator and was denied. b. He was wrongfully accused of stealing and was not given the opportunity to properly defend himself. The supply sergeant had him sign for some watches. When he went absent without leave (AWOL), the supply sergeant stole them and blamed it on applicant for it. The applicant did go AWOL, twice, because his father had liver cancer and was given weeks to live; however, he was denied leave. c. The second time he went AWOL, his wife at the time, left him and took his son with her. She called him from New York and told him he had three days to get there or she would commit suicide. Once he resolved all of his personal issues he turned himself in and pleaded to stay in the service. 3. The applicant provided a self-authored statement detailing the circumstances surrounding his discharge. 4. A review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 20 November 1986. b. Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for one specification of going AWOL. . c. On 6 April 1988, he consulted with legal counsel who advised him on the basis for his contemplated trial by court-martial and the maximum permissible punishments authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the significance of his suspended sentence to a bad conduct dishonorable or dishonorable discharge; of the possible effects of an under other than honorable discharge, if this request is approved, and the procedures and rights available to him. Following consultation, he requested discharge under the provision of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. In his request, he acknowledged: * he was guilty of the charge against him or of a lesser included offense(s) therein contained which also authorize(s) the imposition of a bad conduct discharge or dishonorable discharge * he did not desire further rehabilitation or a desire to perform further military service * if his discharge was approved, he may be discharged with a bad conduct discharge or dishonorable discharge * he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits and that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law d. Consistent with the chain of commands recommendations to be discharged for the good of the service with a under other than honorable discharge. On 27 April 1988, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request. e. On 31 May 1989, he was discharged from active duty under the provision of AR 635-200, chapter 10. He completed 1 year, 5 months and 6 days of active service during this period of service. 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. 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 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 record, 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. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): Not Applicable 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), sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. 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 provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses 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. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170017595 4 1