ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 May 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180000842 APPLICANT REQUESTS: her narrative reason for separation be changed to reflect hardship APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Self-Authored Statement * Copy of Marriage License * Request for Operational Deferment 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 her reason for separation should be a hardship discharge and not a dependency separation. 3. The applicant provides a detailed self-authored statement describing her military and personal experiences with regards to the hardship she faced (see attached). 4. A review of the applicant’s service records shows: a. She enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 June 1982. b. On 24 October 1983, she extended her 3 year enlistment by 18 months to complete a normal overseas tour in Hawaii. c. On 27 October 1983, she submitted a request for a 90 day operational deferment. d. On 21 November 1983, she requested to be discharged from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Separations) chapter 6, (Separation Because of Dependency of Hardship). In her request, she states that she recently extended for an overseas tour to Hawaii under the impression that her spouse would be able to transfer with her, as he was a service member in the U.S. Navy. After she and her husband were married, on 10 November 1983, they attempted to apply for a joint domicile assignment in Hawaii. They discovered that there were no joint domicile agreements between the services, therefore, if she were to fulfill the assignment to Hawaii, she could be facing separation from her husband for a period of 3 years. e. In addition, she had a 4 month old son who would also be separated from his father, which would be a severe family burden. Due to the fact that the applicant just extended to fulfill her 3 year tour obligation to Hawaii, she was told that a deletion from orders would not be favorably considered. She was now faced with a dilemma of either fulfilling her tour in Hawaii which would result in severe family and financial hardships, or requested to be discharged from the service in order to stabilize her family life. She strongly felt that she could not fulfill her tour in Hawaii without causing adverse results on her family. f. On 21 November 1983, her commander submitted his recommendation for approval of her request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 6, Separation Because of Dependency or Hardship. g. On 23 November 1983, the approving authority approved her request for a chapter 6 discharge and directed the issuance of an honorable discharge certificate. h. Her DD Form 214 shows that she was discharged on 16 December 1983 under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 6, paragraph 6-3a, and issued an honorable discharge certificate. It also shows that she has 1 year, 5 months and 29 days of active service with no lost time. She was awarded or authorized the Army Service Ribbon and the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16). 5. By regulation, enlisted members of the Active Army and the Reserve Components serving on Active Duty AD or ADT may be discharged or released (para 6-10), because of genuine dependency or hardship: a. Dependency exists when death or disability of a member of a Soldier's (or spouses) immediate family causes that member to rely upon the soldier for principal care or support. b. Hardship exists when in circumstances not involving death or disability of a member of the Soldier's (or spouses) immediate family, separation from the Service will materially affect the care or support of the family by alleviating undue and genuine hardship. 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 reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined that relief was not warranted. Based upon the documentary evidence available, the Board found that the narrative reason currently on the applicant’s DD Form 214 accurately depicts the reason for separation, lack of a family care plan. For that reason, the Board concluded that here was insufficient evidence to show that an error or injustice existed which would warrant changing the applicant’s record. 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 (AR) 635-200, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a provided that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. 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 provided that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a member whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the member's separation specifically allows such characterization. It will not be issued to members upon separation at expiration of their period of enlistment, military service obligation, or period for which called or ordered to active duty. c. Paragraph 6 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, enlisted members of the active army and the reserve components serving on active duty or active duty training may be discharged or released (para 6-10) because of genuine dependency or hardship. d. Dependency exists when death or disability of a member of a Soldier's (or spouses) immediate family causes that member to rely upon the soldier for principal care or support. e. Hardship exists when in circumstances not involving death or disability of a member of the Soldier's (or spouses) immediate family, separation from the Service will materially affect the care or support of the family by alleviating undue and genuine hardship. 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.