ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 May 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180014573 APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show his service is characterized as general, under honorable conditions. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 293 (Application for Correction of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States) in lieu of a 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 he joined the Army in 1970 and volunteered to serve an extra year because he was promised an aircraft maintenance military occupational specialty (MOS). However, he was assigned as a duty Soldier and told he had to go to Vietnam. He did not pay close attention when he signed his release papers. He thought he would receive a general discharge for a breach of contract, because that is what he was told by an Army lawyer. His performance was great until they took him out of aircraft maintenance. 3. On 18 February 1970, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years and training in MOS 67A (Aircraft Maintenance Apprentice). He attended basic and advanced individual training. A DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form) shows he volunteered for aircraft maintenance apprentice training, at the time, he held MOS 67A (General Aircraft Repairer). This form also shows the applicant was advised that upon completion of this training he would be assigned in accordance with the needs of the service. 4. On 17 June 1970, while at Fort Rucker, AL, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed on 11 June 1970. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty, and restriction. 5. On 2 July 1970, he left Fort Rucker, AL, in a casual leave status enroute to Fort Sill, OK. 6. His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows on 29 August 1970, he was dropped from Army rolls and carried in a deserter status when he failed to report to Fort Sill for duty. On the same date, the applicant’s father was advised the applicant had been absent without leave (AWOL) from Fort Sill since 4 July 1970. If they knew where he was they should encourage him to return to military control immediately. 7. On 23 October 1970, he returned to military control at the Special Processing Detachment, Fort Polk, LA., and he was attached in a duty Soldier status. He was AWOL again from 31 October 1970 to 17 March 1971 and from 19 to 26 March 1971. 8. The applicant's record does not contain all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge process, however, it contains a DD Form 214 that was prepared at the time of separation that shows, on 22 July 1971, he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, for the good of the service, with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, in pay grade E1. He had completed 9 months of active military service. This document also shows he had 247 days of lost time, due to being AWOL and in confinement. 9. Special Orders 198, Headquarters U.S. Army Training Center, Infantry, Fort Polk, confirms the applicant was discharged, effective 22 July 1971, for the good of the service with an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. 10. At the time of separation he had accrued 247 days of lost time. He enlisted for 3 years, there is no evidence that he signed up for an additional year as he stated. He had no foreign service and he completed less than one third of his military service obligation, which is characterized as under other than honorable conditions. 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 guidance. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the records and published DoD guidance for consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board discussed the nature and length of the misconduct, noted that the applicant’s provided no statement of evidence in mitigation and no evidence of post-service conduct for clemency consideration. The Board determined that the evidence was insufficient to recommend a change in his discharge characterization. 2. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined that relief was not warranted. 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. AR 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 stated a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge may, at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate. At the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. b. An honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would have been clearly inappropriate. c. A general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180014573 2 1