ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 August 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180014234 APPLICANT REQUESTS: a reconsideration of her previous request to have her under other than honorable discharge upgraded APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 214 (Report of Separation From Active Duty) FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR2003091484 on 4 December 2003. 2. The applicant states she was young and immature when serving in the military and feels that she deserves a second chance. 3. The applicant provides: a. Proof of her volunteer service in her community. b. A character reference letter from her friend, which states she’s known the applicant for 20 years and she knows her to be a good person, who is actively involved in her church and community. c. An employment reference from a past employer, which states the applicant is someone who would make an outstanding contribution to any company. She is hard working, learns quickly and made a positive impression on everyone she came in contact with. 4. A review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. She enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 August 1976. b. She accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on/for the following offenses: * On 13 October 1976, for disrespectful behavior towards a non-commissioned officer and disobeying a lawful order * On 22 April 1977, for failing to be at her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time * On 2 May 1977, for disobeying a lawful order * On 14 July 1977 & 19 October 1977, for failing to be at her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time * On 28 October 1977, for disobeying a lawful order c. The applicant's immediate commander notified her of his intent to initiate separation proceedings against her under the provisions of Army Regulations (AR) 635- 200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Separations), Chapter 13 for misconduct. The commander advised her of her rights to counsel, and provided her an opportunity to submit statements on her behalf. d. On 31 October 1977, the applicant acknowledged receipt of notification from her commander, waived her right to be represented by counsel and consideration of her case to be heard by an administrative separation Board. She did not provide a statement on her behalf. e. The applicant was recommended for separation by her commander and her chain of command concurred. Consistent with the chain of commands recommendations, the separation authority approved her separation on 7 December 1977 and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge characterization. f. The applicant was discharged on 9 December 1977, under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 13, paragraph 13-5a, because of misconduct. Her DD Form 214 shows she had 1 year, 3 months and 29 days of active service with no lost time. She was awarded or authorized the Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle (M-16). 5. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of her character of service. After considering the evidence, the ADRB denied her request. 6. By regulation, AR 635-200, action will be taken to separate an individual for misconduct when it is clearly established that it is unlikely that he will develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier. 7. The Board should consider the applicant's petition and his service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found the relief was not warranted. The applicant’s contentions, letter of support and post-service achievement was 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. One possible outcome was to grant relief based upon her post-service conduct, the amount of time that has passed since the misconduct, and her remorse for the events leading to her discharge. However, based upon the short term of honorable service completed prior to a pattern of misconduct, the majority of 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 : : :X GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :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. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Separations), in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 1-13d (Honorable) provides 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 current enlistment of current period of service with due consideration for the member’s age, length of service, grade, and general aptitude. b. Paragraph 1-13e (General) states that 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. When a member’s service is characterized as general, except when discharged by reason of misconduct, unfitness, unsuitability, homosexuality, or security, the specific basis for such separation will be included in the individual’s military personnel record. c. Paragraph 13. This chapter establishes policy and provides procedures and guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel found to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service. d. Paragraph 13-5a, of this version, in effect at the time, says that commanders will ensure that before taking separation action against a member under the provisions of this chapter, adequate counseling and rehabilitation measures have been taken. Reassignments accomplished in connection with rehabilitation attempts normally will be made without expending permanent change of station or military personnel Army (PCS- MPA) funds. See paragraph 13-7c for exceptions to this policy. 2. 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//