ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 August 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180003418 APPLICANT REQUESTS: correction of his narrative reason for separation. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552). REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 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 3-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, set forth the basic policy for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-39 governed the Trainee Discharge Program. It provided for the discharge of individuals who lacked the necessary motivation, discipline, ability, or aptitude to become a productive Soldier. a. The service member must have: * voluntarily enlisted in the Regular Army, Army National Guard, or the Army Reserve * was in basic combat training, advanced individual training, service school, or on- the-job training prior to award of a military occupational specialty * not completed more than 179 days of active duty or initial active duty for training on their current enlistment by the date of discharge b. Soldiers could be separated when they demonstrated they were not qualified for retention for one or more of the following reasons: * could or would not adapt socially or emotionally to military life * could not meet minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation, or self-discipline, or demonstrated character and behavior characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service * did not meet the moral, mental, or physical standards for enlistment, including disqualifying drug use 3. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribed the policies and procedures for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). The specific instructions stated for: * item 9c (Authority and Reason) – enter statutory and/or regulatory authority for separation plus the separation program designator (SPD) code * item 27 (Remarks) – this section would be used for entries authorized by Headquarters, Department of the Army, for which a separate item is not available on the DD Form 214 and to complete entries too long for their respective blocks 4. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designators), in effect at the time, prescribed the specific authorities (statutory or other directives), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on DD Form 214. The appendix (SPD and Authority Governing Separations) shows SPD code JNF in May 1974 represented "Miscellaneous-General (Trainee Discharge Program)" and the regulatory authority as Department of the Army Message, DAPE-MPE, dated 011510Z August 1973. The March 1976 interim change shows SPD code JNF represented "Marginal or Non-Productive Performance (Trainee Discharge Program)" and the regulatory authority as Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-39. 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. FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame as provided in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b); however, the ABCMR 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 was 16 years old and he had a nervous breakdown. 3. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 April 1976 at 17 years of age. 4. The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Form 871-R (Trainee Discharge Program Counseling), dated 29 April 1976, states in: a. Part II (Observations), block 13 (Initial Observation): On 15 April 1976, the applicant was observed and counseled by Sergeant First Class (SFC) F____. SFC F____ noted the applicant was crying and wanted to go home. The applicant settled down after he talked with him, but he has never been a stable trainee. The applicant has a very poor attitude toward the Army and lacks motivation. b. Part III (Counseling/Rehabilitation), block 14 (Date and Results of First Counseling/Rehabilitation Effort): On 29 April 1976, the applicant was counseled by SFC F____ for being disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer. Week by week the applicant has been counseled for lack of self-discipline and motivation. The applicant quits on any mission of the training that challenges him. Every effort has been made to rehabilitate the applicant, but he just quits and says he wants to get out of the Army. c. Part III, block 15 (Date and Results of Second Counseling/Rehabilitation Effort): On 30 April 1976, the company commander stated the applicant should be transferred to another platoon for further training, observation, evaluation, and counseling as needed. 5. The TRADOC Form 871-R, dated 28 June 1976, states in part III, block 15: a. On 6 May 1976, the applicant was counseled by the company commander, Captain M____. The commander stated the applicant has a very poor attitude toward the Army and stated he doesn’t care and wanted to get out. The applicant has no initiative and is not a self-starter. The commander stated he always has to get after the applicant to get minor tasks done. The applicant needs constant supervision. The applicant received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for misconduct and was constantly disrespectful toward noncommissioned officers and officers. The applicant has no military bearing or courtesy. The applicant cries when reprimanded, has difficulty accepting instruction, and gets confused easily. b. The commander recommended the applicant's discharge from the Army. 6. On 28 June 1976, the company commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-39. The specific reasons for his proposed action were that the applicant displayed severe deficiencies in motivation and self-discipline by continually requesting a discharge and refusing to participate in military occupational specialty 11E (Armor Crewman) training. These actions on his part were completely undesirable of a Soldier and possessed a threat to the overall morale of the company. The applicant was advised of his rights. 7. On 28 June 1976, the applicant acknowledged notification of his proposed honorable discharge. He indicated he did not desire to make statements or submit a rebuttal in his own behalf. He also did not desire to have a separation medical examination if his discharge was approved. He acknowledged: * he understood that due to non-completion of requisite active duty time, Veterans Administration (currently known as the Department of Veterans Affairs) and other benefits normally associated with completion of honorable active duty service would be affected * he understood that he would not be permitted to enlist in the Armed Forces within 2 years of his discharge 8. The 1st endorsement from the Commander, Company C, 3d Battalion, 1st Training Brigade, dated 28 June 1976, subject: Discharge from the U.S. Army, recommended the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-39. 9. The 2nd endorsement from the Commander, Headquarters, 3d Battalion, 1st Training Brigade, U.S. Army Armor Center and Fort Knox, dated 29 June 1976, subject: Discharge from the U.S. Army, recommended the applicant's immediate discharge. He had interviewed the applicant and concurred with the evaluation and recommendation of the company cadre. The applicant was extremely deficient in motivation and self-discipline. He was 17 years old and had not been able to adjust to the military environment. Even when confronted with the possibility of additional punishment, the applicant still refused all training efforts. The battalion commander believed further efforts to train the applicant would be a waste of time. 10. The 3rd endorsement from the Commander, Headquarters, 1st Training Brigade, U.S. Army Armor Center and Fort Knox, dated 30 June 1976, subject: Discharge from the U.S. Army, approved the applicant's honorable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-39. 11. On 13 July 1976, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-39. He completed 3 months and 5 days of active service during this period. His DD Form 214 shows the following entries in item 27 (Remarks): * Miscellaneous-General (Trainee Discharge Program) * SPD code JNF * Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-39 12. Based on the applicant's contention the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) medical staff provided a medical review for the Board members. See "MEDICAL REVIEW" section. MEDICAL REVIEW: 1. The ARBA Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents and the applicant’s military service records. The Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) & Health Artifacts Image Management Solutions (HAIMS) was not in use at the time of his service. His military medical records were not available for review. 2. A review of VA’s Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) indicates he was evaluated on 17 November 2010. The applicant reported he has always heard voices but can’t understand what they are saying. He stated he has had mental health treatment since age 16. While incarcerated he was diagnosed with Schizophrenia and received medication management until he was released from prison in May 2010 with three months of medication. The provider diagnosed him with Alcohol Dependence Disorder, Polysubstance Dependence Disorder, in remission, Schizophrenia, Depression, not otherwise specified, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) due to childhood trauma. 3. His last inpatient hospitalization was 17 April 2018 with discharge diagnoses of Alcohol Dependence Disorder, Polysubstance Abuse Disorder, Cocaine Dependence Disorder, Schizophrenia, Personality Disorder, and PTSD. His last outpatient appointment was 13 August 2019 with the diagnoses of Schizoaffective Disorder, depressive; Cocaine Use Disorder, in remission; and Schizophrenia. An administrative note from 27 September 2019, indicates the applicant died on 28 August 2019. There is documentation to indicate he had a preexisting behavioral health condition when he joined the service. His reason for discharge is not considered misconduct, is accurate, and no change is warranted. BOARD DISCUSSION: The Board carefully considered the applicant's request, evidence in the records, a medical review, and published Department of Defenst guidance for liberal consideration of requests for changes to discharges. The Board considered the applicant's statement, his record of service, and the reason for his separation. The Board considered the applicant's claim to have had a nervous breakdown and the review and conclusions of the ARBA Medical Advisor. The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors and concurred with the conclusion of the ARBA Medical Advisor that the reason for his discharge was appropriate. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the reason for the applicant's separation was not in error or unjust. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180003418 6 1