ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 June 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170018734 APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 214 (Certification Release of Discharge) * Letters of Support 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 at the time of his discharge, he was having issues at home. His father, his only living family, was dying of cancer, and the applicant did not utilize good judgement in dealing with his father’s coming demise. He was young and had issues with alcohol. He has been sober since 1991 and hasn’t had any problems since his discharge. 3. On 21 August 1974, at the age of 20, the applicant joined the Army. His records show that he completed Basic Training (BCT) was attending Advanced Individual Training (AIT), for the MOS of 72G (Audition Switch Control Traffic Operator. 4. In January 1975, the applicant was charged with 2 specifications of violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86 for being Absent Without Leave (AWOL) from 2-11 December 1974 and 12 December 1974 to 13 January 1975. 5. On 15 January 1975, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635- 200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. He consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the trial by court-martial, his available rights 1. and the basis for voluntarily requesting discharge under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He acknowledged he could be ineligible for many or all Army and/or Veterans Affairs Benefits. He signed a request for discharge for the Good of the Service and indicated he would not submit statements in his own behalf. 6. On 5 February 1975, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant's request directing the applicant be reduced to the grade private (PV1/E1) and he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 7. On 25 February 1975, he was discharged accordingly, his service was characterized as UOTHC. His DD 214 shows he completed 4 months and 13 days of total active service; and reflects the award of the National Defense Service Medal. Of note, block 27 remarks shows that the applicant had 42 days lost time for being AWOL. 8. The applicant provided three letters of support from colleagues that spoke of his dependability, family oriented style, as well as his care and respect for others. 9. Army Regulation 635-200 states a Chapter 10 is a voluntary discharge request in- lieu of trial by court martial. In a case in which an UOTHC is authorized by regulation, a member may be awarded an honorable or general discharge, if during the current enlistment period of obligated service he has been awarded a personal decoration or if warranted by the particular circumstances of a specific case. 10. The applicant’s records show that he joined the Army at age 20 and completed BCT and was attending AIT when he went AWOL twice. His records further shows that he elected a discharge for the good of the service. 11. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, his service record, and his statements in light of the published DOD guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined that relief was not warranted. Based upon the short term of service completed prior to multiple AWOL offenses, as well as a lack of character evidence submitted by the applicant to show that 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. 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. 6/18/2019 X CHAIRPERSON Signed by: 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 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), in effect at the time, stated when the general court-martial authority determined that a Soldier was to be discharged from the service under other than honorable conditions he was reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. Board action was not required for this reduction. 3. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 stated a member who was charged with an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request could be submitted at any time after charges had been preferred and must have included the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally issued to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. b. An honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law. 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 have been clearly inappropriate. c. A general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. d. An UOTHC is an administrative separation from the service under conditions other than honorable. It may be issued for misconduct. In a case in which an UOTHC is authorized by regulation, a member may be awarded an honorable or general discharge, if during the current enlistment period of obligated service he has been awarded a personal decoration or if warranted by the particular circumstances of a specific case. a. 4. 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. a. 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 on the basis of 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. b. 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.