UPARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 August 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180010027 APPLICANT REQUESTS: upgrade from other than honorable conditions discharge to under honorable conditions. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) 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 discharged 45 years ago, because he went absent without leave (AWOL) while having marriage problems. He is hoping to have his discharge upgraded and thanks the Board for their consideration. 3. A review of the applicant’s service records shows: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 February 1972. He was assigned to Fort Knox, KY. b. The applicant separation packet is unavailable for review. However, his DA form 20 shows in block 44 (Time Lost) he went AWOL on 3 separate occasions: 11 September 1972 to 26 September 1972, 28 September 1972 to 22 January 1973, and from 20 February 1973 to 23 May 1973. Block 38 (Record of Assignments) reflects that he was dropped from rolls on 28 September 1972 and returned to military control on 23 January 1973. He was dropped from rolls again on 20 February 1973 and returned to military control on 24 May 1973. c. His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) reflects that on 2 August 1973, he was discharged from active duty under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10 (In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial) with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. He had 10 months and 9 days of active duty service. He had 226 days of lost time. 4. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge with in that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 5. By regulation (AR 635-200), an individual who has committed an offense or offenses, the punishment for which includes a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service. An under other than honorable conditions discharge will normally be furnished an individual who is discharged for the good of the service. 6. 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 short term of honorable service completed prior to multiple lengthy period of AWOL offenses, 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 Separation – Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 1-13a (Honorable Discharge) states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. 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 1-13b (General Discharge) states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a member whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Chapter 10 of this regulation states an individual who has committed an offense or offenses, the punishment for which includes a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service. An under other than honorable discharge certificate normally is appropriate for a member who is discharged for the good of the Service. However, the separation authority may direct a General Discharge Certificate, if such is merited by the member's overall record during the current enlistment. 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) AR20180010027 3 1