ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 July 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180000233 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of his previous request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to a general, under honorable conditions discharge. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Character Letter * Congressional Inquiry FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in AGUZ-PSA-A Letter, dated 7 May 1981. 2. The applicant states he was young and immature at the time of his active duty. He is now 66 years old and remorseful of his past actions. 3. The applicant provides: a. A character reference from the current commander from the American Legion which states the applicant, by his own admission, states he was young and mixed up. The applicant wishes he could take that time back and do the “right thing.” The applicant has been extremely respectful of the veteran men and women that make up the American Legion post. The applicant has been an active volunteer and has offered his assistance in many activities held. If his discharge status is reversed, the commander would be the first one to petition the membership to welcome the applicant as a veteran member of the post. b. A congressional inquiry from Congressman X placing congressional interest into the applicant’s case in order to expedite his request. 4. The applicant’s service record shows: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 September 1972. b. He accepted nonjudicial punish on/for: * 5 December 1973; absenting himself from his place of duty; the punishment imposed was forfeiture of $88 and 14 days of extra duty * 28 December 1973; two specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of duty; the punishment imposed was reduction to private (PVT)/E-2 * 7 February 1974; being absent without leave (AWOL); the punishment imposed was reduction to PVT/E-1 from which he appealed and was subsequently denied on 13 February 1974 * 13 March 1974; sleeping upon his post; the punishment imposed was forfeiture of $100, suspended until 12 May 1974, extra duty, and restriction c. Court-martial charges were preferred against him on 27 February 1975. His DD Form 458 (Charge Sheets) reflects he was charged with one specification of AWOL from 6 August 1974 to 25 February 1975. d. After consulting with legal counsel, on 28 February 1975 and 21 March 1975 he subsequently requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service), Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). He acknowledged: * maximum punishment * he is guilty of the charge(s) against him or of a lesser included offense(s) * he did not desire further rehabilitation * he understood that if his request for discharge was accepted he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate * he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits administrated by the Veterans Administration * he may be deprived of his rights and benefits of a Veteran under both Federal and State laws * he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an undesirable discharge e. On 27 March 1975, the separation approval authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service. He would be discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, for the good of the service, furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate (DD Form 258A), and reduced to the lowest enlisted pay grade. f. On 9 April 1975, he was discharged from active duty under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10. His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he completed 1 year, 11 months, and 1 day of active service with 222 days of lost time from 12 January 1974 to 30 January 1974 and 6 August 1974 to 24 February 1975. It also shows he was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service Medal. g. On 28 February 1977 and 25 January 1980, the Army Discharge Review Board determined that he was properly discharged. His request for change in the type and nature of his discharge was denied. h. On 7 May 1981, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records was denied his application for correction. The applicant failed to present new and material evidence to show existence of error or injustice in the military records. 5. By regulation, a member who has committed an offense or offenses, the punishment for which 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. 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 relief is not warranted. The applicant’s contentions and a letter of support was 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 accepts responsibility for his actions; however, based upon the relatively short term of honorable service completed prior to a pattern of misconduct, including a lengthy period of AWOL, 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in AGUZ-PSA-A Letter, dated 7 May 1981. 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 1-9d (Honorable Discharge) states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. Issuance of an honorable discharge will be conditioned upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member’s current enlistment of current period of service with due consideration for the member’s age, length of service, grade, and general aptitude. b. Paragraph 1-9e (General Discharge) states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service) states an individual who has committed an offense or offenses, the punishment for which includes a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service. An undesirable discharge certificate will normally be furnished an individual who is discharged for the good of the service. 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 the 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, 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 upgrade service characterization. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180000233 4 1