ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 June 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180012498 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * an upgrade of his discharge from under honorable conditions (general) to honorable * correction of military occupational specialty (MOS) on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * correction of his DD Form 214 to show the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar 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) * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions) * self-authored statement * DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) * 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: a. He was informed at separation that an upgrade of his character of service would be automatic after 6 months of his discharge. b. The person typing his DD Form 214 mistyped his MOS Code, which he did not notice the error until after he was discharged. He was awarded and performed duties as a 68D (Aircraft Powertrain Repairer) throughout his military service. a. 3. The applicant provides a self-authored statement: a. He is in the process of requesting a copy of his medical records to verify if the records contain any history related to a heart condition he experienced while in service. He states if, history is found within his medical records, he should be given a medical discharge, which would change his discharge to honorable and provide him more access to Department of Veterans Affairs benefits. b. His 201 file (Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ)) should serve as a source to assist with the correction of errors on his DD Form 214. He states his DD Form 214 is missing his Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar and his listed as 63D for the MOS Aircraft Powertrain Repairer when it should be 68D, Aircraft Powertrain Repairer. 4. A review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 June 1985 and attained the rank of private first class/E-3. b. Orders 197-071, dated 10 October 1985, issued by U.S. Army Transportation Center, Fort Eustis, VA awarded the applicant the MOS of 68D (Aircraft Powertrain Repairman), effective 10 January 1986. c. DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) shows: (1) Item 17 (Civilian Education and Military Schools), shows he completed the Aircraft Powertrain Repairman – 68D MOS School in 1985. (2) Item 35 (Record of Assignments) shows the applicant served in 68D MOS assignments throughout his time in the Regular Army. d. He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 on/for: * on 22 December 1986, for stealing a pair of rubber overboots from another Soldier; his punishment consisted, in part, a reduction in rank to private/E-2 * on 25 March 1987, for wrongfully using government property (tools) for repairs on his privately-owned automobile and lost, through neglect, an aviation mechanic’s tool box, valued at $358.00, which was military property of the United States e. Around the end of March 1986, the applicant’s immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation proceedings against him under the provisions of AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13 for unsatisfactory a. performance. The commander advised him of his rights to counsel and provided him an opportunity to submit statements on his behalf. f. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander’s intent to separate him. He consulted with legal counsel who advised him of the basis for the contemplated separation action for unsatisfactory performance, the type of discharge he could receive and its effect on further enlistment or reenlistment, the possible effects of this discharge, and of the procedures/rights available to him. He elected to submit a statement in his own behalf. He acknowledged: * he understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were issued to him * he understood he could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under Federal and State laws as a result of the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions * he understood if he received a discharge characterization of less than honorable, he could make an application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the ABCMR for an upgrade, but he understood that an act of consideration by either board did not imply his discharge would be upgraded g. The applicant was provided a mental status evaluation, a complete physical examination on various dates, and was determined to be both psychiatrically and physically cleared for administrative separation actions deemed appropriate by his command. h. In his statement, dated 6 April 1987, he requested to be retained on active duty as he believed he had learned from his mistakes and would be able to continue to serve the Army well. He acknowledged his military leadership thought he was untrustworthy, untrainable, and didn’t know his job. He shared that he knew his job very well and scored a 97% on his last skills qualification test, even though he had not been assigned any tasks out of his job book since he was assigned to his unit. He stated he was treated unfairly by his commander and first sergeant and requested a transfer to another unit to get a fresh start. In his final statement, the applicant requested to be allowed to continue serving until he reached his expiration of term of service. i. The applicant’s immediate commander recommended he be separated under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200 for unsatisfactory performance because the applicant was determined by his leadership to be untrainable, too immature, and irresponsible to be retained by the Army. j. The separation authority approved the applicant to be discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance, directed the applicant to receive a general under honorable conditions character of service, and a. determined the applicant would not be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve. The applicant was discharged on 14 May 1987. k. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged for unsatisfactory performance, Separation Code JHJ, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, with his service characterized as general under honorable conditions. He completed 1 year, 10 months, and 25 days of active service with no lost time. l. Item 11 (Primary Specialty Number, Title and Years and Months in Specialty (Additional specialty numbers and titles involving periods of one or more years)) shows an entry of “63D1O” as the MOS Code and “Aircraft Powertrain Repairer” as the applicants title of the MOS. m. Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) shows the applicant was awarded or authorized: * Army Service Ribbon * Expert Marksmanship Badge with Rifle Bar 5. By regulation (AR 635-5, Personnel Separations-Separation Documents), in part regarding Item 11 of the DD Form 214, the primary MOS held by the member of the date of separation would be entered. He held MOS 68D, not 63D. 6. The applicant’s service does not show he was authorized or awarded an Expert Marksmanship Badge with Grenade Bar. By regulation (R 672-5-1), a basic marksmanship qualification badge is awarded to indicate the degree in which an individual, military or civilian, has qualified in a prescribed record course and an appropriate bar is furnished to denote each weapon with which he/she qualified. Each bar will be attached to the basic badge which indicates the qualification last attained with the respective weapon. Basic qualification badges are of three classes. Expert, sharpshooter, and marksman. The “Grenade” bar is one of the weapons for which component bars are authorized. Any commander in the grade or position of lieutenant colonel or higher may make awards to Soldiers. 7. By regulation (AR 635-200), Soldiers are subject to separation under the provisions of chapter 13, when he or she is unqualified for further military service because of unsatisfactory performance. An honorable or under honorable conditions (general) discharge was an appropriate and authorized characterization of service. 8. 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. 1. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined partial relief is warranted. The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered. The Board concurs with the MOS correction stated in the Administrative Note(s) below. 2. The applicant’s record is absent evidence of a grenade qualification and level. Finally, 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 in making a clemency determination. Based the preponderance of evidence to include the misconduct within the record, the Board agreed that the applicant's discharge characterization was warranted as a result of the misconduct; there is no evidence if an error or injustice. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF X X X GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: In addition to the administrative notes annotated by the Analyst of Record (below the signature), the Board determined 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. 6/26/2019 X CHAIRPERSON Signed by: 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): A review of the applicant’s service records shows his primary specialty is incorrectly listed on his DD Form 214. As a result, amend his DD Form 214, Block 11 (Primary Specialty) as follows: Delete 63D1O, Aircraft Powertrain Repairer, 1 year and 5 months Add 68D1O Aircraft Powertrain Repairer, 1 year and 5 months 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), set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is given when the quality of the Soldier's service has generally met standards of acceptable conduct and duty performance. b. Paragraph 3-7b provides that 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. c. Paragraph 13-2, of the version in effect at the time, established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for unsatisfactory participation. Commanders will separate a Soldier for unsatisfactory performance when it is clearly established that: * in their judgement, the Soldier will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier * the seriousness of the circumstances is such that the Soldier's retention would have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order, and morale * it is likely that the Soldier will be a disruptive influence in present or future duty assignments * it is likely that the circumstances forming the basis for initiation of separation proceedings will continue or recur * the ability of the Soldier to perform duties effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely 3. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribed the separation documents that must be prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge, release from active duty service, or control of the Active Army. It also established standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214. The regulation stated that the entry in Item 11 (Primary Specialty Number, Title and Years and Months in Specialty (Additional specialty numbers and titles involving periods of one or more years)) would be the primary military occupational specialty (MOS) held by the member on the date of separation as recorded on his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II). 1. 4. AR 672-5-1,Military Awards, Change 13, paragraph 5-32 provides a basic marksmanship qualification badge is awarded to indicate the degree in which an individual, military or civilian, has qualified in a prescribed record course and an appropriate bar is furnished to denote each weapon with which he/she qualified. Each bar will be attached to the basic badge which indicates the qualification last attained with the respective weapon. Basic qualification badges are of three classes. Expert, sharpshooter, and marksman. The “Grenade” bar is one of the weapons for which component bars are authorized. Any commander in the grade or position of lieutenant colonel or higher may make awards to members of the Armed Forces of the United States. 5. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records on 25 July 2018, regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records may grant clemency from a sentencing in a court- martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. 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, Boards shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official government acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. b. Changes to the narrative reason for the 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 has the upgraded service characterization. //NOTHING FOLLOWS//