ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 23 April 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180004303 APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests, in effect, upgrade his discharge from uncharacterized to honorable. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Letter of Authorization * County Mental Health Center letter * Separation Orders * Two DA Forms 4856-R (General Counseling Form), first page only * Applicant's government identification card * Three letters of reference * U.S. Marine Corps Certificate of Commendation * Two photos FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10 (Armed Forces), United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b) (Correction of Military Records: Claims Incident Thereto). However, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (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 they gave him an entry-level separation, but he had completed more than 180 days of active duty. a. He had a series of events occur during his advanced individual training (AIT) that forever changed the course of his Army career and his life. Three stressors caused him to become extremely depressed and to want out of the Army: the death of his grandfather, his parents not attending his graduation, and the Army recycling him because of his broken wrist. a. b. His parents divorced when he was young and he moved in with his father and stepmother at age 10. His father was an Army command sergeant major and the applicant enjoyed the structure of military life. Circumstances resulted in him becoming a ward of the state; he was in foster care from 13 years of age until he entered the Army and he moved from one foster home to another. Before he entered foster care, he found his grandfather was the only person in his life who showed him unconditional love. c. When he enlisted in the Army, his father kept in touch with him, as did his mother. Both parents and his grandfather promised to attend his graduation; unfortunately, this did not happen. His grandfather, who was the one steady force in his life, passed away; his death had a huge impact on him. In addition, his parents did not attend his graduation; his father was deployed and his mother wrote a letter of explanation as to why she could not come. Add to this, he broke his wrist during a weekend leave; his leadership recycled him and he felt his world was ending. He acknowledges he was young and immature; he did not have the faculties necessary to handle these disappointments. He decided he no longer wanted to be in the Army. d. At the time, he met the Army's criteria for insanity; he was experiencing extreme grief, he was depressed, and he was not making rational decisions. The aforementioned events made him behave in ways that were not normal for him. Although he received counseling, it was minimal by today's standards. They told him leaving the Army would be a mistake, but he was 18 years old and unwilling to listen. The only question his attorney discussed dealt with getting a dishonorable discharge; in his mind, he believed he was getting an honorable discharge and did not know about other characters of service. The applicant asserts either no one fully disclosed the implications of what he was doing, or his distressed state of mind caused him not to comprehend; in any case, he asserts his service was otherwise honest, meritorious, and faithful. e. The applicant points out, in his separation documentation, his AIT commander discussed the applicant's feelings of insecurity and stated the applicant was immature. While the commander does not mention this, the feelings described came about after they notified him via a post-it note on his wall locker stating, "Grandfather died." He felt something so personal and emotional should not have been handled this way. The applicant also disputes other comments made by his AIT commander with regard to how the relationship with his parents emotionally "disfigured his mind." The applicant contends he never said this. f. The psychological evaluation stated he was depressed; if current rules were applied, he would have gotten grief counseling and been able to continue with his military career. However, during this era, the rules were to "suck it up and drive on"; the applicant maintains he was just not able to do that. a. g. A year later, after getting counseling, he tried to reenlist; the recruiter said obtaining a waiver would not be an issue. However, the recruiter later told him they had denied his waiver, he added the applicant should have waited longer than a year. He had not realized his discharge was not honorable and did not know what kind of proof was needed to reenlist. h. He spent the next 31 years trying to make up for his inability to rejoin the service. He furthered his education; he first obtained an Emergency Medical Technician certification, and later earned his certification as a paramedic. He got married, and he and his wife raised two beautiful children; his oldest son is in the U.S. Air Force. The applicant owns property; he has worked hard to make something of his life. When 9/11 happened, he became a GS-12 (General Schedule, 12th paygrade) employee for the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC). His role is to train Marines on the new MRAP (Mine- Resistant, Ambush-Protected vehicle); he also assists in keeping the vehicles 100 percent mission-capable. He highlights his accomplishments as a GS-12 employee and notes the recognition he has received. i. Changing his discharge would allow him to move forward from the bad choices he made in the past; he feels confident that, looking now at what he has accomplished, he no longer is the person characterized by his discharge. 3. The applicant provides: * Letter of Authorization reflecting his 2009 to 2010 deployment to Kuwait as a GS civilian * County Mental Health Clinic letter, dated August 1987, which affirms the applicant was last seen in 1985; showed good overall appearance with no evidence of serious mental illness or legal incompetency; previous difficulties were atypical depressive disorder without loss of reality contact * Three letters of reference from U.S. Marines with whom he deployed; all describe him as someone who is extremely professional and dedicated, and that he has made significant contributions to their unit * USMC Certificate of Commendation for outstanding duty performance as a Force Protection MRAP Field Service Representative in Iraq from April to October 2008 4. The applicant's service records show: a. He enlisted into the Regular Army on 1 May 1986. He was assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, MO for both basic combat training and AIT; he arrived at his AIT unit on or about 27 June 1986. b. On 10 August 1986, he went to the Fort Leonard Wood emergency room due to a wrist injury; the applicant stated he had jammed his wrist while getting out of a swimming pool. He continued receiving follow-up treatment through September and much of October 1986. On 20 October 1986, he told a member of the orthopedic a. medical staff he wanted out of the Army; on 22 October 1986, a psychiatrist and a psychologist from the Community Mental Health Service (CMHS) evaluated the applicant and determined he: * showed antisocial, nervous, passive-aggressive, and immature behavior; in addition his mood was depressed * had a severe, mixed-type personality disorder; he had a history of living in group homes * was recommended for removal from training; while the applicant could distinguish right from wrong and had the capacity to understand separation/legal proceedings, his disorder was severe enough not to be amenable to treatment; was recommended for expeditious discharge c. On 24 October 1986, his AIT first sergeant and company commander each counseled the applicant in writing; each described the applicant's unwillingness to participate and complete training. They both supported the CMHS recommendation for separation; the applicant concurred with both counseling statements. d. On 24 October 1986 (5 months and 24 days after entry on active duty), his AIT commander notified the applicant in writing of his intent to separate him under the provisions of paragraph 5-13 (Separation Because of Personality Disorder), Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). The commander advised the applicant he could receive a characterization of uncharacterized. e. On 27 October 1986, after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged counsel had told him of the basis for the contemplated separation action, the rights available to him, and the effect of waiving those rights. He requested counsel, but waived all other rights and elected not to make a statement in his own behalf. f. In his recommendation to the separation authority, the AIT commander stated the applicant had asked to speak to the entire chain of command; the applicant indicated he felt insecure in the military and that living with his parents had "disfigured his mind." The applicant stated it was a complete mistake to join the military. g. On 31 October 1986, the separation authority approved the commander's recommendation and directed the applicant's entry-level separation with an uncharacterized character of service; he was discharged accordingly on 4 November 1986. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 6 months and 4 days of net active service; he was awarded or authorized two marksmanship qualification badges. His reenlistment (RE) code was "RE-3" (waiver required for reenlistment). h. On 20 October 1987, the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), requesting a change in his RE code to allow him to reenlist (RE-1; fully qualified with no restrictions). He argued the narrative reason for separation a. (Personality Disorder) was unjustified; he explained the difficulties he experienced with the death of his grandfather, and breaking his wrist. He stated he was in a cast and had to watch while his classmates graduated. He did not know to whom he could turn, so he asked his chain of command to discharge him; he later realized his mistake. He indicated he had seen a doctor and the doctor stated the applicant's psychiatric condition no longer existed. On 19 May 1988, the ADRB determined his discharge was proper and equitable, and denied the applicant's request. 5. The governing regulation stated, when commanders initiated separation action against a Soldier within the first 180 days of their continuous active duty, the Soldier was considered to be in an entry-level status; in the applicant's case, his chain of command notified him of the contemplated separation action 5 months and 24 days after he entered active duty. The applicant received an uncharacterized character of service; entry-level separations were issued an uncharacterized character of service. However, the Secretary of the Army was empowered to award an honorable character of service on a case-by-case basis when warranted by unusual circumstances involving personal conduct or duty performance. 6. Commanders could separate a Soldier for personality disorder when the action was based on a diagnosis from physician trained in psychiatry, and the behavior severely interfered with the Soldier's ability to perform his/her duties. Commanders could not initiated separation processing until the Soldier's chain of command had formally counseled him/her concerning deficiencies and given the Solder ample time to improve. 7. The applicant describes circumstances that contributed to his diagnosis of personality disorder; he also notes his significant post-service achievements. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, his service record, and his statements in light of the published guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, to include the DoD guidance on liberal consideration when reviewing discharge upgrade requests, the Board determined that relief was not warranted. Based upon the applicant completing less than 180 days prior to his discharge being initiated (not executed), the Board concluded that there was no error or injustice present and that the characterization of service received at the time of discharge was appropriate. For that reason, the Board recommended denying the applicant’s request for relief. 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. X 4/29/2019 CHAIRPERSON Signed by: 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 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the 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. AR 635-200, in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a (Honorable Discharge) stated an honorable discharge was a separation with honor. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and duty performance. b. Paragraph 3-7b (General Discharge). A general discharge was a separation under honorable conditions, and applied to those Soldiers whose military record was satisfactory, but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Paragraph 3-9 (Uncharacterized Separations). A separation was deemed entry- level status when commanders initiated the action while the Soldier was within the first 180 days of continuous active duty. Soldiers separated in an entry-level status were issued an uncharacterized character of service. On a case-by-case basis, and when clearly warranted due to unusual circumstances involving personal conduct or duty performance, the Secretary of the Army could grant a Soldier an honorable character of service. e. Paragraph 5-13 (Separation Because of Personality Disorder). (1) Commanders could separate a Soldier for personality disorder (not amounting to a disability) when: * the condition was a deeply-ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior of a long duration such that it interfered with his/her performance of duty * the diagnosis had to have been established by a physician trained in psychiatry and psychiatric diagnosis (2) Commanders were only authorized to pursue separation when the disorder was so severe the Soldier's ability to function effectively was significantly impaired. In addition, commanders could not initiated separation processing until the Soldier's chain of command had formally counseled him/her concerning deficiencies and given the Solder ample time to improve. (3) Characterization of service was honorable, unless in an entry-level status. (1) 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. a. 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 on the basis of 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. b. 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.