ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 August 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180003392 APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general, under honorable conditions or honorable. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge) 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 it has been 48 years and he was chemically dependent, young and irresponsible. He wanted financial security for his wife and baby. He cares about his country and service members, and he honors our vets. 3. A review of the applicant’s active duty service record shows the following: a. He was inducted in the Army of the United States on 10 June 1968. b. Special Court-Martial Order 2412, dated 3 December 1968 shows that the applicant was found guilty of being AWOL from his unit from 2 September 1968 to 26 October 1968. His punishment included confinement at hard labor for 2 months and forfeiture of $68 per month for two months. The sentence was adjudged on 21 November 1968. The convening authority states that the sentence is approved and will be duly executed, but the execution of that portion there of adjudging confinement at hard labor is suspended, effective 9 December 1968,·until 20 January 1969, at which time, unless the suspension is sooner vacated, the suspended portion of the sentence will be remitted without further action. The prisoner will be confined in the Post Stockade, Fort Carson, Colorado, and the confinement will be served therein, or elsewhere as competent authority direct. d. Special Court-Martial Order 1167, dated 2 July 1969, shows that the applicant was found guilty of being AWOL from on/about 11 January 1969 to 22 May 1969. His punishment included hard labor for 6 months and to forfeit $68 per month for 6 months. One previous conviction was considered. The sentence was adjudged on 19 June 1969. The convening authority approved the sentence on 2 July 1969. e. Special Court-Martial Order 635, dated 22 July 1969, states that all unexecuted portions of sentences to forfeiture of pay pertaining to the applicant are suspended until 4 September 1969, at which time, unless sooner vacated, the suspended portion of the sentence will be remitted without further action. f. DA Form 188 (Extract Copy of Morning Report) shows that the applicant was reported absent without leave (AWOL) on 4 September 1969 and dropped from the rolls on 30 October 1969. g. After an exhaustive search, facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge of the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) chapter 10 for the good of the service are unavailable for the Board to review. h. Special Orders 27, dated 27 January 1970, discharges the applicant from active duty under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service with [Undesirable Discharge Certificate] an effective date of 29 January 1970. i. He was discharged from active duty on 29 January 1970. His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. He completed 5 months and 14 days of active duty service with 149 days of lost time comprising of an additional period of AWOL 4 September 1969 through 10 December 1969. 4. The applicant’s record is void of evidence that shows he applied for a discharge upgrade with the Army Discharge Review Board within 15 years of the separation. 5. By regulation, AR 635-200, chapter 10 of this regulation states an individual whose conduct has rendered him triable by court-martial under circumstances which could lead to a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial. An individual who is under a suspended sentence of a punitive discharge may likewise submit a request for discharge 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 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 short term of honorable service completed prior to multiple lengthy periods 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 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 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. When a member’s service is characterized as general, except when discharge by reason of misconduct, unfitness, and unsuitability. c. Chapter 10 of this regulation states an individual whose conduct has rendered him triable by court-martial under circumstances which could lead to a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial. An individual who is under a suspended sentence of a punitive discharge may likewise submit a request for discharge 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 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180003392 0 3 1