ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  17 June 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20180014060


APPLICANT REQUESTS: upgrade of his under other than 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 he was not provided due process and he was discriminated against and he was forced into making a decision, by threats.  

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

  	a.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 April 1977.  He was promoted to Private (PV2)/E-2 on 20 October 1977, and private first class (PFC)/E-3 on 20 April 1978.

	b.  On 21 April 1978, he was reported in an absent yourself from your place of duty without authority.  He was reduced to the grade of E-2/PV2, suspended for 30 days, forfeiture of $75 for 1 month, and 14 days of extra duty.

	c.  Summary Court-martial Order Number 2, dated 28 September 1978, shows charges were preferred against him for one specification of violation of disobeying a lawful order.  

   d.  Summary Court-martial Order Number 3, dated 29 November 1978, shows charges were preferred against him for two specification of violation of disobeying a lawful order.  
   
   e. DA Form 4126-R (Bar to Enlistment/Reenlistment Certificate), dated 4 February 1980.

   f.  On 20 May 1980, court-martial charges were preferred against him. His DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) indicates he was charged with two specification of resisting arrest, assault on military police by striking and pushing him, disobey a lawful order 21 May 1980.  

	g.  He consulted with legal counsel on 20 May 1980 and subsequently requested discharge under the provision of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.  In his request, he acknowledged:

* the maximum punishment
* he was guilty of the charge against him or of a lesser included offense which authorized a punitive discharge
* he did not desire further rehabilitation or a desire to perform further military service
* if his discharge was approved, he may be discharged under conditions other than honorable and the effects of the discharge
* he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits and that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law

   h.  Consistent with the chain of command recommendations and following a legal review for legal sufficiency, on 11 July 1980, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge.  He would be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and issued an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.

	i.  On 11 August 1980, he was discharged from active duty under the provision of AR 635-200, chapter 10.  He completed 3 year, 2 months, and 29 days of active service.

* Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16)
* Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Hand Grenade Bar

4.  By regulation, discharges under the provision of AR 635-200, chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service) are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.

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 there is insufficient evidence to grant relief.  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 record, 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.


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.  Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, provides for the separation of enlisted personnel.

   a.  Paragraph 1-9d (Honorable discharge) states that 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 age, length of service, grade, and general aptitude.

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

	c.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides that a Soldier 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.  The discharge request may be submitted after court-martial charges are preferred against the Soldier or where required, after referral, until final action by the court-martial convening authority.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged for the good of the service.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’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)	 AR20180014060


5


1