ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:

	BOARD DATE:  25 June 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20180003927


APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade to his general, under honorable conditions 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 he does not know why he did not receive an honorable discharge because he was a great Soldier.  He is requesting an upgrade to an honorable conditions discharge.

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

	a.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 May 1975.

	b.  He accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on 18 May 1976, for failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 7 May 1976.

	c.  He accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UMCJ, on 9 June 1976 for willfully disobeying a lawful order from his non-commissioned officer on 3 June 1976.

	d.  On 7 September 1976, he received orders reassigning him for rehabilitative purposes.

	e.  On 3 May 1977, he accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for departing his appointed place of duty on 1 May 1977.  His punishment was a reduction to private first class/E-3.
	f.  On 23 June 1977, he accepted NJP, under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time.  His punishment was a reduction in rank to private/E-2. 

	g.  The applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation proceedings against him under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulations (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Separations) for misconduct.  The commander advised him of his rights to counsel, and provided him an opportunity to submit statements on his behalf.

	h.  On 23 June 1977, the applicant signed the acknowledgement of notification, requested to be represented by counsel and for consideration of his case by an administrative separation board.  He did not provide a statement but his counsel did on his behalf.

	i.  His record is void of the separation authority’s approval but according to his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty), the applicant was discharged on 16 December 1977 under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, paragraph 13-5a, with a reason for discharge as misconduct and received a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  His DD Form 214 also shows he completed 2 years and 6 months and 16 days of active service with no lost time.  He was awarded or authorized the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16)

4.  By regulation, AR 635-200, action will be taken to separate an individual for misconduct when it is clearly established that it is unlikely that he will develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.  

5.  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 record, 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.


ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S):

Not Applicable

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 Separations), in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Paragraph 1-13d (Honorable) provides that 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 1-13e (General) states that 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 discharged by reason of misconduct, unfitness, unsuitability, homosexuality, or security, the specific basis for such separation will be included in the individual’s military personnel record.

	c.  Paragraph 13.  This chapter establishes policy and provides procedures and guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel found to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service.

	d.  Paragraph 13-5a, of this version, in effect at the time, says that commanders will ensure that before taking separation action against a member under the provisions of this chapter, adequate counseling and rehabilitation measures have been taken. Reassignments accomplished in connection with rehabilitation attempts normally will be made without expending permanent change of station or military personnel Army (PCS-MPA) funds. See paragraph 13-7c for exceptions to this policy.

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.
 
//NOTHING FOLLOWS//

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20180003927


3


1