ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


IN THE CASE OF: 
BOARD DATE: 5 August 2019 
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180010568

APPLICANT REQUESTS: his under other than honorable conditions discharge be 
upgraded.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

   *	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
   *	Self-Authored Statement 
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 in 1974 he received an under other than honorable discharge 
after a court-martial for going absent without leave (AWOL) in December 1973. He is 
requesting an upgrade because his life is getting short and to get help from the 
Veterans Administration because of his health since he had a stroke. In 1972, as a 17 
year old boy, he entered the draft. He entered only after he was given an ultimatum 
between military service and prison. Essentially his service was involuntary. It was 
difficult for him to accept the structure and discipline of military life.

   a.	Although he truly tried to adjust to military life, it was extremely hard for him. 
Especially because he was merely a child who has never ventured outside of TX and 
who was not accustomed to structure or discipline since he grew up in a shattered 
home without a mother or a father. He was shuffled between different family members 
where he mainly raised himself. Like most youths with similar stories, the streets 
became his family and livelihood. Upon return on leave, he made a regrettable decision 
in December 1973 to not return to his duty station. In 1974, he was discharged under 
other than honorable conditions.

   b.	He now realizes at age 63, he could have and should have made better life 
choice as a youth.  But, as a youth, he lacked the knowledge to do so.  He lacked the
   


wisdom and understanding to realize and appreciate the fact the military offered the 
maturity and discipline he lacked.

   c.	As he enters the last stages of his life, with his declining health, it is obvious he 
made poor decisions as a youth. Consequently, he is dependent on others and ill 
prepared for the inevitable circumstances and results of aging. He wishes to not further 
burden his children. He would like to leave behind something his grandchildren can be 
proud of when he is mentioned. He would like the Board to take into consideration the 
amount of time that has elapsed, the fact he was merely a 17 year old boy who had 
never been away from home, and his current life circumstances.

3.	A review of the applicant’s service record shows:

   a.	On 30 September 1972, he enlisted in the Regular Army.

   b.	On 27 February 1973, he accepted nonjudicial punishment for one specification 
of AWOL from 9 January 1973 to 21 February 1973. His punishment included forfeiture 
of $50 pay per month for two months.

   c.	On 11 January 1974, he was tried by special court-martial and found guilty of four 
specifications of AWOL from 16-27 April 1973, 7 May 1973 to 31 July 1973,
31 July 1973 to 15 October 1973, and 5-8 November 1973. A military judge sentenced 
him to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge, forfeiture of $150 
pay per month for four months, and to be confined at hard labor for 70 days.

   d.	On 17 March 1974, the sentence was approved. The record of trial was 
forwarded for appellate review.

   e.	On 2 June 1975, the sentence to a bad conduct discharge, confinement at hard 
labor for 70 days, and forfeiture of $150 pay per month for four months was affirmed 
and the sentence ordered duly executed.

   f.	On 14 July 1975, he was discharged from active duty under the provisions of 
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 11 
(Dishonorable and Bad Conduct Discharge), and issued an under other than honorable 
conditions discharge. His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) reflects 
that the completed 1 year, 7 months, and 2 days of active service with 657 days of lost 
time from 19-22 November 1972, 9 January 1973 to 20 February 1973,
16-26 April 1973, 7 May 1973 to 30 July 1973, 31 July 1973 to 14 October 9173,
5-7 November 1973, 9 November 1973 to 6 March 1974, and 10 April 1974 to
14 July 1975. It also shows that he was awarded or was authorized the Marksman 
Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.

   g.	There is no evidence the applicant has applied to the Army Discharge Review 
Board for review of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
   


4.	By regulation, an enlisted person will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant 
only to an approved sentence of general or special court-martial, after complete of 
appellate review and after such affirmed sentence has been ordered duly executed.

5.	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 was remorseful 
with his application. 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 periods of AWOL, 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.


 X	
CHAIRPERSON

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 (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), in 
effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

   a.	Paragraph 1-9d (Honorable Discharge) states an honorable discharge is a 
separation with honor. Issuance of an honorable discharge will be conditioned upon 
proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member’s current 
enlistment of current period of service with due consideration for the member’s age, 
length of service, grade, and general aptitude.

   b.	Paragraph 1-9e (General Discharge) states a general discharge is a separation 
from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record is not 
sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

   c.	Chapter 11-2 (DD Form 259A (Bad Conduct Discharge)) states an enlisted 
person will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of 
general or special court-martial, after complete of appellate review and after such 
affirmed sentence has been ordered duly executed.

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 the 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, 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 upgrade service characterization.



//NOTHING FOLLOWS//