ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 May 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170019231 APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of the previous Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decision promulgated in Docket Number AR20050005732, on 14 February 2006. Specifically, he requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to either an under honorable conditions (general) discharge or an honorable discharge. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552), with personal statement * Congressional Privacy Release Form * 2 Letters from Counsel to his Member of Congress, petitioning relief * 2 Page Document Roster listing: * DD Form 256A (Honorable Discharge Certificate), issued 31 August 1961 * Recommendation for 3 day pass, 3 August 1962 * Infantry Mechanics Course, completion certificate dated 26 January 1961 * Welding Course completion certificate dated 23 March 1962 * Welding Set Certificate of Training attended 7 and 8 May 1963 * DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), for the periods ending 31 August 1961 and 16 July 1963 * Crawford County, Pennsylvania Board of Elections, Certificate of Election dated 30 November 1977 * Greenwood Township Supervisor’s, letter of appreciation for six years in office dated 2 January 1984 * Watson Run Church leadership roster * Letter verifying receipt of DD Form 149 for ABCMR Docket Number AR20050005732, dated 20 April 2005 * Masonic Lodge Number 790, list of Past Masters * Crane Certification Association of America (CCAA), newsletter cover from October 2016, issue 105 * Extract of a CCAA newsletter from October 2016, issue 105, page 14 * Email extract awarding him a service contract, dated 26 September 2017 * FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20050005732 on 14 February 2006. 2. As a new argument, the applicant states he was proud to be a Soldier. He was stationed at Camp Irwin near Las Vegas, NV, where he acquired a gambling problem that ultimately ended his career. He further states through counsel: a. Based on the documents presented, it is clear that as a Soldier [the applicant] did his duty. He performed well as a Soldier and his discharge status was in no way related to any failure in job performance. [The applicant] received an Honorable Discharge on 31 August 1961; however, because of his desire to serve his country further, he re- enlisted for further service, which lead to the circumstance in question. b. [The applicant] was a very young man from the small town of Meadville, PA and became enamored with the lifestyle of Las Vegas, which was relatively close to Camp/Ft. Irwin, where he was stationed. This lead to his indebtedness and eventual Less Than Honorable Discharge. As a former Company Commander who served in Iraq, had I lost a Soldier under my command or in my section to similar circumstances, I would have felt profoundly responsible. In my estimation, the chain of command and NCO support channel failed. c. It is unclear how an exemplary Soldier can become unfit for reenlistment in less than two years due to chronic debt problems, without a recognized failure in the Chain of Command and NCO Support Channel. Considering [the applicant] has led an exemplary life his entire life, since being separated from the Army. Based on the accomplishments of [the applicant], initially as a Soldier and then later in his civilian career, one has to believe that a reasonable amount of appropriate leader influence applied would have saved his military career. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 August 1959. He served in Korea and was honorably discharged on 31 August 1961, for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. His DD Form 214 for this period of service shows he completed 2 years, and 28 days of creditable active service. 4. The applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army on 1 September 1961. 5. The applicant’s service record contains the following: a. Commander's letter of indebtedness from Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD, dated 22 February 1962. a. b. DA Form 19-32 (Military Police Report), dated 27 February 1963, which shows he stole money from his former employee on or about 6 February 1963. c. The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment, under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on the following occasions: * on 5 June 1963, for absenting himself from his unit from on or about 3 June 1963 thorough on or about 4 June 1963 * on 19 June 1963, for wrongfully appropriating an automobile radio between 1 January 1963 and 2 June 1963, for making a false statement with the intent to deceive on or about 2 June 1963 d. DA Form 19-24 (Statements), from his chain of command, which show: * his character and efficiency were good but not outstanding, this changed over the last 3 months, he was constantly in debt, owing money to many creditors * he was absent from formations on 3 or 4 occasions, his military appearance and bearing was not good, his attitude toward his job was negative * he was not considered to be fully trustworthy or reliable * his present rating was poor * he was counseled on several occasions and instead of trying to liquidate his debts, he just added more debts * his chain of command spent a lot of time writing letter to creditors * he voiced a desire for discharge and he didn’t care how he got out * he was counseled on his potential for being discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 (Personnel Separations - Discharge – Undesirable Habits and Traits of Character), by reason of his involvement in frequent incidents and being issued an "Undesirable" discharge 6. The applicant’s immediate commander notified the applicant that he was initiating actions to separate the applicant from service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, by reason of his involvement in numerous undesirable incidents since April 1963. 7. The applicant subsequently acknowledged the commander’s recommendation for discharge on 19 June 1963, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, for undesirable habits or traits of character. He was further advised of his right to: * be represented by counsel [he declined] * he waived his right to have his case heard by Board of Officers * submit statements in his own behalf [he did not make any statements] * he voluntarily signed the statement * 8. The applicant's commander formally recommended his separation from service on 19 June 1963, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, by reason of his involvement in frequent undesirable incidents. His intermediate commander recommended that he be eliminated from the service under provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 and that an Undesirable Discharge Certificate be furnished. 9. The separation authority approved the applicant's discharge on 3 July 1963, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, and directed that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. 10. The applicant was discharged on 16 July 1963. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, and his service was characterized as UOTHC. 11. The applicant applied to the ABCMR on 5 April 2005 for an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge; however, the Board denied his request for an upgrade on 14 February 2006. 12. The applicant provides: * 2 letter from counsel as previously detailed * 2 page register showing the following documents: * Service documents, included as items 1 through 5, 14 and 15 * A poor copy of Crawford County, Pennsylvania Board of Elections, Certificate of Election dated 30 November 1977 with what appears to be the applicants name * A letter of appreciation from the Greenwood Township Supervisor, thanking the applicant for serving six years in office and terminating his term of office effective 31 December 1984, dated 2 January 1984 * Watson Run Church leadership roster showing he was the Senior Pastor * A letter verifying receipt of DD Form 149 for ABCMR Docket Number AR20050005732, dated 20 April 2005 showing the applicant previously applied to the Board * Masonic Lodge Number 790, list of Past Masters showing held the position in 2007 * A newsletter cover from CCAA, from October 2016, issue 105 and page 14 of CCAA newsletter from October 2016, issue 105 showing the name "Bill Hough" highlighted * An excerpt of an email, he states awards him a service contract, dated on 26 September 2017 13. In reaching its determination, the Board should consider the provided statement and his post service accomplishments, in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. 1. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, to include the DoD guidance on liberal consideration when reviewing the discharge upgrade requests, the Board determined that relief was warranted. Based upon the demonstrated growth from the applicant through several character statements and the passage of time, the Board determined that granting clemency by upgrading the characterization of service to Under Honorable Conditions (General) was appropriate. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 X X X GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the applicant a DD Form 214 showing his characterization of service as Under Honorable Conditions (General). 5/14/2019 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. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), currently in effect, governs the policies and procedures for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. 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. 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. 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. 2. Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness. Individuals would be discharged by reason of unfitness with an undesirable discharge, unless the particular circumstances in a given case warranted a general or honorable discharge, when it had been determined an individual's military record was characterized by one or more of the following: (a) frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; (b) sexual perversion including but not limited to lewd and lascivious acts, indecent exposure, indecent acts with or assault upon a child, or other indecent acts or offenses; (c) drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming narcotic drugs or marijuana; (d) an established pattern for shirking; or (e) an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts. 3. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records on 25 July 2018, regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records 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 a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. 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 a. grounds, Boards 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. 4. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records on 25 July 2018, regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records 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 a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. 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, Boards 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.