ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD DATE: 11 September 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180008010 APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade to his 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 at the time of service, he was suffering from depression, drugs, and alcohol addiction. He was not offered counseling for either problem or he lost his grandparents (who raised him), and his best friend. He was told to get drunk and get over it. He did attend rehab in Germany, but it was next door to the bar and no one ever followed up on his progress. He has worked hard the rest of his life to be a contributor to society and he is now 27 years clean. Getting put out has been a personal regret since he left the military. 3. A review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 August 1982. He served in Germany from 31 July 1980 to 12 March 1982. b. He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on/for: * 5 May 1981, one specification of causing a breach of the peace by shouting “leave me alone”, and physically resisting efforts to calm him down. One specification of willfully breaking 3 mirrors in the latrines of a value of about $22.50. His punishment was reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $135.00, 14 days extra duty and 14 days restriction * 10 July 1981, one specification of being drunk and disorderly conduct. One specification of dis obeying a lawful order, and one specification of through neglect, breaking a window. His punishment was reduction to E-2, 14 days extra duty and 14 days restriction * On June 1982, wrongfully have in your possession marijuana. His punishment was reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $144, 14 days extra duty c. On 28 July 1982, his immediate commander advised him of his intent to initiate action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)). The reason for the proposed actions is that he demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel in the Army. He have evidenced, through several counseling statements and three article 15’s, a lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt, poor duty performance, and a failure to demonstrate promotion potential. Through his negative attitude you have maintained a poor military bearing demonstrating an inability to become a Soldier in the U.S. Army. d. Consistent with the chain of command recommendation, the separation authority approved the discharge on 29 July 1982, under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-31 and directed the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. e. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged on 4 August 1982, under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-31 with an under honorable conditions (General) discharge. He completed 2 years, 4 months and 4 days of net active service. 4. The applicant's record is void of evidence indicating he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15 year statute of limitations. 5. By regulation, AR 635-200, members who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential may be discharged under the EDP. 6. The Board should 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. He was discharged for after a pattern of misconduct and was provided an under honorable conditions (General) characterization of service. The Board agreed that the applicant's discharge characterization is warranted as he did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. 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, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 5 provided that members who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential may be discharged under the EDP. It provided for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive Soldiers before board or punitive action became necessary. No member would be discharged under this program unless he/she voluntarily consented to the proposed discharge. Issuance of an honorable discharge certificate was predicated upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member's current enlistment with due consideration for the member's age, length of service, grade, and general aptitude. b. 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. 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) AR20180008010 4 1