ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  18 June 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20180002185


APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade of his characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to honorable.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)

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, he is really just asking for consideration of an upgrade to his discharged because he knows he made a serious mistake in not fulfilling his obligations.  He has regretted this since the time of his actions, and has not been in any trouble prior to or afterwards.  He states he has a hollow feeling of knowing he dishonored himself and the Army.  He feels it would be fantastic to tell his grandkids about his service without feeling ashamed of his failures.

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

	a.  He enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 2 August 1984.  He served in Germany from 10 January 1985 to 9 October 1986.

	b.  He was discharged on 26 May 1987 for immediate reenlistment, and reenlisted on 27 May 1987.  He was again discharged on 26 February 1990 for immediate reenlistment, and reenlisted on 27 February 1990.  He served in Korea from 21 April 1989 to 24 April 1990.

	c.  His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) reflects that he was designated absent without leave (AWOL) for a period of 627 days from 22 June 1990 to 10 March 1992.  He was dropped from rolls on 23 July 1990, and returned to Military control on 10 March 1992.
	d. Court martial charges were preferred on 16 March 1992.  His DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) indicates he was charged with one specification of AWOL for a period of 627 days from 22 June 1990 to 10 March 1992.

	e.  He consulted with legal counsel on 16 March 1992 and subsequently requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service).  He acknowledged:

* the maximum punishment if found guilty
* if his request was accepted, he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions 
* if approved, he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits
* he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and that he may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a Veteran under both Federal and State law
* he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an under other than honorable conditions discharge

	f.  Following a legal review for legal sufficiency and consistent with the chain of command's recommendation, on 16 March 1992, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He would be reduced to private/E-1.

	g.  On 4 June 1992, he was discharged from active duty under the provisions of 
AR 635-200, Chapter 10 (In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial) with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service.  He completed 6 years, 1 month, and 14 days of active service and had 627 lost days, from 22 June 1990 to 10 March 1992.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) further shows he was awarded or authorized:

* Army Service Ribbon
* Overseas Service Ribbon (2nd Award)
* Driver Mechanics Badge
* Army Commendation Medal
* Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon
* Good Conduct Medal (1st Award)
* Expert Marksmanship Badge with Rifle Bar (M16)
* National Defense Service Medal
* Expert Marksmanship Badge with Hand Grenade Bar

4.  By regulation (AR 635-8), Soldiers who have previously reenlisted without being issued a DD Form 214 and are separated with any characterization of service except “Honorable,” will have “Continuous Honorable Active Service for dates which a
DD Form 214 was not issued, until the date before their current enlistment.

5.  By regulation (AR 635-200), 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.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions normally is appropriate for a soldier who is discharged for the good of the Service.

6.  By regulation (AR 635-200), a member who requests discharge as prescribed in chapter 10 will be given a reasonable time (not less than 72-hours) to consult with consulting counsel and to consider the wisdom of submitting such a request for discharge.  Consulting counsel will advise the soldier accordingly.  Commanders will insure that a soldier will not be coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the Service.

7.  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 there is insufficient evidence to grant relief.  The applicant’s contentions were 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 did not provide character witness statements or evidence of post-service achievements for the Board to consider.  Based upon the length of the AWOL offense which resulted in the applicant’s separation, the Board agreed that the applicant's discharge characterization was warranted as a result of the misconduct.

However, the Board did note that the applicant had prior periods of honorable service which was not currently reflected on his DD Form 214 and recommended that change be completed to more accurately depict his military service.


BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	GRANT FULL RELIEF

X	X	X	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:	:	:	DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by adding the following additional statement to block 18 (Remarks) of his DD Form 214:  “Continuous honorable active service from 27 May 1987 until 26 February 1994.”
2.  The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to upgrading the characterization of his discharge.
	 
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 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) sets policies, standards, and procedures to insure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of soldiers for a variety of reasons. Readiness is promoted by maintaining high standards of conduct and performance.

	a.  Chapter 10, of this regulation, states that a soldier 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.

	b.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier'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.

	c.  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.

3.  AR 635-8 (Personnel Separations – Separation Processing and Documents), prescribes the transition processing function of the military personnel system.  This new regulation provides principles of support, standards of service, policies, tasks, rules, and steps governing required actions in the field to support processing personnel for separation and preparation of separation documents.

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.  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. Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.


ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20180002185


5


1