ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

I

	BOARD DATE:  4 April 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20180014630


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions 
discharge to honorable.

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 3-year time frame provided in Title 10 (Armed 
Forces), United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b) (Correction of Military Records:  
Claims Incident Thereto).  However, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records 
(ABCMR) 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 they told him his discharge would become honorable after 
7 years; it has not changed yet.  He notes all of his legal paperwork burned in his house 
fire.

3.  The applicant's service record shows:

	a.  He enlisted in the Regular Army, on 4 September 1968, at age 17 after obtaining 
parental consent; he held military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons 
Infantryman).  Following completion of initial training, orders assigned him to Korea and 
he arrived 18 February 1969.  Effective 5 April 1969, orders promoted him to private first 
class (PFC).  

	b.  On 14 September 1969, the applicant became absent without leave from his unit 
in Korea; his unit dropped him from Army rolls on 7 November 1969.

	c.  On 29 March 1976, as a result of a Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI) being 
conducted at an associate's house, the applicant contacted the FBI and surrendered 
himself to military authority; he was transferred to the Fort Campbell, KY U.S. Army 
Personnel Control Facility (PCF).

	d.  On 31 March 1976, the applicant's PCF commander preferred court-martial 
charges against him for AWOL from 15 September 1969 (sic; should be 14 September) 
until 29 March 1976 (a total of 2,389 days, i.e. 6 years, 6 months, and 16 days).  
On 2 April 1976, after consulting with counsel, the applicant requested discharge for the 
good of the service, in-lieu of trial by court-martial, under chapter 10 (Discharge for the 
Good of the Service), Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted 
Personnel).  In his request, he affirmed no one subjected him to coercion and counsel 
had advised him of the implications of his request.  He acknowledged he was guilty of 
the charge and submitted a statement in his own behalf, essentially stating he had a 
wife and six children to support; they needed him.

	e.  On 15 April 1976, the separation authority approved the applicant's request and 
directed his undesirable discharge under other than honorable conditions; he also 
ordered the applicant's reduction to private (PV1)/E-1; on 19 May 1976, he was 
discharged accordingly.  His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation of Active Duty) 
showed he had completed 1 year and 2 months of net active creditable service with 
2,389 days of lost time.  He was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service 
Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, and two marksmanship qualification 
badges.

4.  The UCMJ violation of AWOL for more than 30 days included a dishonorable 
discharge as a punishment.  Discharges under chapter 10, AR 635-200 were voluntary, 
and were available in lieu of trial by court-martial once charges had been preferred.  

5.  The Army has never had a policy of automatically upgrading character of service; for 
consideration of an upgrade, applicants are required to submit applications, within 
statutory time limits, to the Army Discharge Review Board or the ABCMR.

6.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army at age 17; prior to his discharge, he 
stated, in effect, he requested separation because he had a wife and six children to 
support.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, 
his service record, and his statements in light of the published guidance on equity, 
injustice, or clemency. 

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 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 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This 
provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file 
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the 
interest of justice to do so.  

2.  AR 635-200, in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for enlisted 
administrative separations.

	a.  Paragraph 1-9d (Honorable Discharge) stated an honorable discharge was a 
separation with honor.  Issuance of an honorable discharge was conditioned upon 
proper military behavior and proficient duty performance.  A Soldier's service was to be 
characterized as honorable based on conduct ratings of at least "Good"; efficiency 
ratings of at least "Fair"; no general court-martial, and no more than one special court-
martial conviction.

	b.  Paragraph 1-9e (General Discharge).  A general discharge was a separation from 
the Army under honorable conditions, where the Soldier's military record was not 
sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

	c.  Chapter 10 permitted a Soldier to request discharge for the good of the service 
when they had committed an offense or offenses which, under the UCMJ and the 
Manual for Courts-Martial, United States 1969 (Revised Edition), included a bad 
conduct or dishonorable discharge as a punishment.  The Soldier could submit such a 
request at any time after court-martial charges were preferred.  Once approved, an 
undesirable discharge was normally furnished, but the discharge authority could direct 
either an honorable or general discharge, if warranted.

3.  The Manual for Courts-Martial, United States 1969 (Revised Edition), Table of 
Maximum Punishments showed Article 86 (AWOL for more than 30 days), UCMJ, 
included a dishonorable discharge.

4.  AR 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), in effect at the time, stated 
in paragraph 7-64c (Reasons for Reduction – Approved for Discharge from Service with 
an Undesirable Discharge), Soldiers being separated with an undesirable discharge 
were to be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.

5.  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 on the basis of 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)	 AR20180014630

5

1