ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 July 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180002308 APPLICANT REQUESTS: that his general, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 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 that he would like his general, under honorable conditions discharge upgraded to an honorable discharge. He was sent to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) because he was in Alaska. He was not able to reach a guard unit because he was over 100 miles away from the nearest unit so they changed his status to IRR. 3. A review of the applicant’s active duty service record show the following: a. He enlisted in the Oregon Army National Guard (ORARNG) on 4 March 1986. b. A DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he served a period of active duty from 26 March 1986 to 24 July 1986 for the purpose of completing initial entry training (IET). He completed IET and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 12B (Combat Engineer). His character of service is listed as uncharacterized. It shows that he completed 3 months and 29 days of active duty service. c. NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows a discharge date of 19 November 1987 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge and authority and reason as a unsatisfactory participant. d. Orders 244-5, dated 17 December 1987, discharged the applicant from the ORARNG with an effective date of 19 November 1987 with an honorable conditions discharge. e. After an exhaustive search no documents concerning the applicant’s 19 November 1987 general, under honorable conditions discharge are available for the Board to review. f. He enlisted in the ARNG on 28 February 1990. g. NGB Form 22, shows a discharge date of 7 June 1991 with general-under honorable conditions. h. Orders 144-8, dated 26 July 1991, discharged the applicant from the ARNG with an effective date of 7 June 1991 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. i. Orders D-03-421137, dated 8 March 1994, discharge the applicant from the Army Reserve effective date of 8 March 1994 with a honorable discharge. 4. The applicant’s record is void of evidence that show he applied for a discharge upgrade with the Army Discharge Review Board within 15 years of the separation. 5. NGR 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management) states that amendments and correction to certificates: a. as originally prepared cannot be altered or amended after the effective date of discharge b. Correction of cosmetic or typographical administrative errors will be made on written application of the individual to the AG (MPMO/G1). Applications for review of the type of discharge certificate awarded under this regulation will be submitted by the individual to the Commander, HRC-St. Louis (AHRC-PAV) on DD Form 293 (Application for Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States) for consideration by the Army Discharge Review Board 6. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicants 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 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 evidence of the Alaska residence, character witness statements or evidence of post-service achievements for the Board to consider. Based upon his failure to participate or receive approval from his command for his absence, as well as the failure to accept responsibility and show remorse for the events leading to his separation, the Board agreed that the applicant's discharge characterization was warranted. Prior to closing the case, the Board did note that the applicant completed initial entry training and based upon the change in DoD policy as to the characterization of service given on a DD Form 214 to reflect that service, the Board recommended changing the characterization of service on the applicant’s DD Form 214 for the period ending 24 July 1986 showing his character of service as Honorable. 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 reissuing him a DD Form 214 for the period ending 24 July 1986 showing his character of service as Honorable. 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 changing his discharge character of service provided by Army National Guard. 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 (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. 3. Army Regulation (AR) 635-5 (Separation Documents) Item 24 (Character of Service) authorized entries are honorable, under honorable conditions (general), under other than honorable conditions, bad conduct, dishonorable, to be determined. 4. NGR 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management) states that when determined from official records that NGB Form 22 contains an error or omission of pertinent facts, discharge authorities may issue NGB Form 22A (Correction of NGB Form 22, Report of Discharge and Record of Service). Physically give the original of NGB Form 22A to the individual concerned. 5. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180002308 0 2 1