IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 December 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180006686 APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. 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. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20140014930 on 9 April 2015. 3. The applicant states he requests his discharge be upgraded as he was assured it would be or he would have never accepted his current discharge. He was intentionally misled by the advice of the JAG officer who told me that he could get out on a chapter 10 hardship discharge in two weeks and 90 days after that he could have his discharge upgraded. 4. On 10 October 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for three years at the age of 20. 5. On 14 November 1980, he received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for failing to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty – 0715 work formation. 6. On 15 June 1981, he received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for failing to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty – at 1100 building 2944 on two separate occasions. . 7. On 18 July 1981, he was listed as absent without leave (AWOL), subsequently being dropped from the rolls on 28 August 1981. . 8. On 21 September 1981, the applicant was charged with being AWOL from on or about 18 June 1981 to on or about 28 August 1981. 9. On 7 October 1981, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. He consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the trial by court-martial, his available rights and the basis for voluntarily requesting discharge under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He signed a request for discharge for the Good of the Service and indicated he would not write a statement on his own behalf. 10. The applicant's chain of command recommended approval of his request and the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant's request and directed he be furnished a UOTHC discharge. 11. On 30 October 1981, he was discharged accordingly; He completed 1 year, 10 months, and 9 days. 12. The applicant states he was misled by the advice of the JAG officer who told him he could get out on a chapter 10 and after 90 days he could have his discharge upgraded. He would never had accepted the discharge had he known the upgrade wasn’t possible. The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits an application to either the Army Discharge Review Board or the ABCMR requesting change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the ABCMR determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable. The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically state that no factors should be established that require automatic change or denial of a change in discharge. 13. Army Regulation 635-200 states a Chapter 10 is a voluntary discharge request in- lieu of trial by court martial. In a case in which an UOTHC is authorized by regulation, a member may be awarded an honorable or general discharge, if during the current enlistment period of obligated service he has been awarded a personal decoration or if warranted by the particular circumstances of a specific case. 14. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, his service record, and his statements in light of the published DOD guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the record and published DoD guidance for consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant’s statement, his record of service, the frequency and nature of his misconduct, the reason for his separation and whether to apply clemency. The Board found there is no current or past policy for automatic discharge upgrades. The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigation for the applicant’s misconduct and the applicant provided no evidence of post-service achievements or letters of reference in support of a clemency determination. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the character of service the applicant received upon separation was not in error or unjust. 2. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :XXX :XXX :XX 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20140014930 on 9 April 2015. 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 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), as in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel, it states: a. A Chapter 10 (Discharge in Lieu of Trail by Court Martial) is applicable to members who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service. The request could be submitted at any time after the charges had been preferred. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, an under other than honorable conditions discharge was normally considered appropriate. b. An honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service has generally met standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. c. 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. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180006686 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180006686 5 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180006686 4