ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 September 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180004852 APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade of his under other than 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 was provoked by his commanding officer because of his race. He needs the benefits to survive and not be homeless. 3. A review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 April 1970. b. He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on: * 16 July 1970 for assaulting an acting sergeant in the face with his fist * 23 July 1970, for failing to report to his appointed place of duty; he was reduced to the grade private/E-2 c. DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) shows court-martial charges were preferred against him on 6 January 1971 for absenting himself from his unit without authority from 2 August 1970 until 22 December 1970. d. The applicant consulted with legal counsel on 12 August 1971 on the following: * He was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the * maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an UOTHC discharge, and the procedures and rights that were available to him. * Subsequent to receiving legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged his understanding that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge against him, or of a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of an undesirable discharge. * He acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request was approved he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. * He was advised he could submit any statements he desired in his own behalf. He did not submit a statement. e. The separation authority disapproved the applicant's request for discharge on 6 January 1971, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. f. On 19 January 1971, the special court-martial was convened at Fort Jackson, SC; the applicant was arraigned and tried. He was found guilty and to be confined at hard labor for three months, forfeiture of fifty dollars for three months, and to be reduced to the grade of Private/E-1. The sentence was adjudged on 13 January 1971. g. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 27 September 1971. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial, and his service was characterized as UOTHC. 4. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 5. The Board should consider the applicant's submissions 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 a pattern of misconduct which included violence towards others, 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), sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. b. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge c. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 3. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge review Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records on 25 July 2018, regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records may grant clemency regardless of the court-martial forum. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180004852 4 1