ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD DATE: 6 June 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180012001 APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show his characterization of service is honorable in lieu of under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 214 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 effect, his attorney (Colonel D R. B , Retired, U.S. Marine Corps) heard a lady admit there had been a mistake with his paper work when he was on the phone with the “Personnel and Records Department”. He also states he was a combat veteran and a good Soldier when he served. 3. On 20 August 1990, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years and 16 days. He held military occupational specialty 11C (Indirect Fire Infantryman). According to his DA Form 20 (Personnel Qualification Record), he was assigned to Fort Bragg, NC, on 11 January 1991 and he served in Saudi Arabia from 29 January to 1 April 1991. 4. On 27 August 1991, he left his unit at Fort Bragg in an absent without leave (AWOL) status. On 28 September 1991, he was dropped from Army rolls and carried in a desertion status until he surrendered to military control and was assigned to the Special Processing Company, Fort, Knox, KY, on 2 February 1993. At the time of surrender he signed a memorandum voluntarily declaring that he was AWOL from 27 August 1991 to 2 February 1993. 5. The applicant’s record is void of a separation packet outlining the facts and circumstances surrounding his separation processing. The record does contain a DD Form 214 that was prepared at the time of separation. This document confirms he was separated, on 22 March 1993, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, for the good of the service, in lieu of court-martial with service characterized as UOTHC. He completed 1 year, 1 month, and 28 days of net active service this period and this service includes 2 months and 3 days of Foreign Service, and lost time from 27 August 1991 through 1 February 1993 [525 days]. He was awarded or authorized the: * Southwest Asia Service Medal with 1 bronze service star * Army Achievement Medal * National Defense Service Medal * Army Service Ribbon * Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge Hand Grenade and Mortar * Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge M-16 Rifle * Combat Infantryman Badge * Parachutist Badge * Kuwait Liberation Medal 6. Orders Number 069-00206, Headquarters U.S. Army Armor Center, Fort Knox, KY, dated 10 March 1993, confirm the applicant was assigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point for transition processing with an effective separation date of 22 March 1993. 7. Discharges under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. He would have been required to voluntarily, willingly, and in writing request discharge from the Army in lieu of court-martial. Even though an honorable or general discharge may be authorized an UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate when discharged under this chapter. 8. His record shows he served in Saudi Arabia for 2 months and 3 days and went AWOL approximately 4 months and 26 days upon his redeployment. He completed approximately one fourth of his 4 year service obligation. In making its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s contentions 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 there is insufficient evidence to grant relief. The board applied Office of the Secretary of Defense standards of liberal consideration and clemency to the complete evidentiary record, including the applicant’s statement and did not find any evidence of error, injustice, or inequity; the applicant had limited creditable service, and insufficient evidence of mitigating circumstances for the misconduct. Neither did the Board find sufficient evidence of post-service honorable conduct that might have mitigated the discharge characterization. The Board agreed that the applicant’s discharge characterization is appropriate. 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. 8/27/2019 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. 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. AR 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 of that regulation, in effect at the time, provides 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, an UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate. 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. 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 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. 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//