ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  8 May 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20170019072 


APPLICANT REQUESTS: upgrade of his other than honorable conditions.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

* DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
* Self-authored statement

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 the other than honorable discharge was unfair because it didn’t take into account his previous military accomplishments or circumstances leading to the missed call-out.  His unit was undergoing practice call-outs.  Leading up to the invasion of Grenada, his unit A Company 3rd Battalion, 325th Infantry, (Airborne), was on Division Reactionary Force (DRF-1).  He told the Charge of Quarters that he was going to the race track (1/4 mile) and he said ok, and hung up.  The call-out took place, and the CQ called a bar, and called the race track.  He was not there, he was at the dragstrip.  He missed the call – out because of bad communication.  His biggest mistake was going absent without leave (AWOL), while his unit was deployed to Grenada.  He believe the other than honorable conditions discharge.  Ruling was too severe of a judgement based on his previous military records, awards, and decorations (accomplishments).

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

	a.  13 November 1980, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  He was promoted to E-5 on 16 July 1983.

	b.  13 October 1983, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, for dereliction in the performance of his duties.  He willfully and negligently failed to leave a phone number or location with his unit where he could be reached during DRF 1 status in the event of a call-out.  He was reduced to E-4.

	c.  15 October 1983, he departed his unit in absent without leave (AWOL) status.  He was dropped from roll (DFR) on 14 November 1983.  He returned to military control on 23 February 1984.

	d.  On 28 February 1984, his commander preferred court-martial charges against him.  His DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) show she was charged with one specification of AWOL from 15 October 1983 to 22 February 1984.

	e.  Subsequent to legal counsel, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel).  He acknowledged:

* Maximum punishment
* he was guilty of the charge against him or of a lesser included offense, which authorized a punitive discharge
* he did not desire further rehabilitation or further military service
* he understands if his discharge was accepted he could be separated with an under other than honorable conditions discharge and furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate
* he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits and that he may be ineligible for benefits by the Veterans Administration and benefits of a Veteran under Federal and State law

	f.  Consistent with the chain of command's recommendations on 29 February 1984, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge.  He will be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and issued an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge.

	g.  He was discharged from active duty on 18 April 1984.  He was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10.  He completed 3 years and 1 month of active service.  His DD Form 214 shows he was awarded or authorized:

* Army Service Ribbon
* Rifle M-16 Expert Badge
* Hand Grenade Expert Badge
* Parachute Badge
* Expert Infantryman Badge
* M60 Expert Badge
* Army Achievement Medal
* .45 Caliber Pistol Expert Badge

4.  By regulation, discharges under the provisions of chapter 10 of AR 635-200 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses, the punishment for any of which 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 seriousness of the dereliction of duty, the lengthy AWOL offense that followed, as well as the lack of evidence presented by the applicant to show he learned from the events leading to discharge, the Board concluded that the characterization of service received at the time of discharge 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) states 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) states 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.

	c.  Chapter 10 of this regulation provides 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, includes a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service.  An under other than honorable discharge certificate normally is appropriate for a member who is discharged for the good of the service.  However, the discharge authority may direct an honorable or general discharge if such are merited by the member’s overall record during the current enlistment

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)	 AR20170019072


4


1