BOARD DATE: 4 June 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180015590 APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to under honorable conditions (general). APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces) * DD Form 214 (Certification Release of Discharge) * Letter of Support 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 that “he was falsely accused of a matter and had problems”. Of note, the applicant said he provided a supplement to support this assertion, but there was no attachment. 3. On 16 January 1978, the applicant entered the Regular Army for 3 years. The highest grade he held was Specialist (SPC/E-4) in January 1980. 4. On 27 June 1980, the applicant was charged with being absent without leave (AWOL) from 16 February through 16 June 1980. 5. On 27 June 1980, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10. He consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the trial by court-martial, his available rights and the basis for voluntarily requesting discharge under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. He acknowledged he could be ineligible for many or all Army and/or Veterans Affairs Benefits. He signed a request for discharge for the Good of the Service had a mental evaluation that cleared him for separation but declined to have a medical exam, and indicated he would submit statements in his own behalf. The statement spoke of the problems he was having in his military career as well as at home with his spouse and he thought it was best if the military let him get out instead of keeping him against his will. 6. On 14 August 1980, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant's request directing the applicant be furnished an UOTHC Discharge Certificate and reduction to Private E1. 7. On 15 September 1980, he was discharged accordingly, his service was characterized as UOTHC. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 2 years and 4 months and of net active service with 11 months Foreign Service. Of note, block 18 remarks states the applicant had 91 days of excess leave, was separated on temporary records, and a DD Form 215 will be issued to provide the missing information. 8. On 13 January 1981, the applicant submitted a request to have his discharge upgraded. The Board determined that the separation was both proper and equitable and thus voted to deny the applicant’s relief. 9. The applicant provided a letter of support from the Northwestern Jaycees that spoke of how the applicant’s support and mentorship has paid dividends, both in raising funds, and communication within the prison community. 10. Army Regulation 635-200 states a Chapter 10 is a voluntary discharge request in- lieu of trial by court martial. In a case in which an UOTHC is authorized by regulation, a member may be awarded an honorable or general discharge, if during the current enlistment period of obligated service he has been awarded a personal decoration or if warranted by the particular circumstances of a specific case. 11. The applicant’s records show that he served 2 years and 4 months of his 3 year contract. He obtained the grade of SPC prior to being charged with AWOL. He requested a Chapter 10 for the good of the service and was discharged accordingly. 12. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, his service record, and his statements in light of the published DOD guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency. 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 his record of service, the nature of his misconduct, his statement regarding the AWOL period, the post-service information he provided and considered the application of clemency. The Board determined there was insufficient mitigation for his misconduct and that his character of service was not in error or an injustice. 2. After reviewing the application and all supporting documentation, the Board determined that relief was not warranted. BOARD VOTE: OARD 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 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), in effect at the time, stated when the general court-martial authority determined that a Soldier was to be discharged from the service under other than honorable conditions he was reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. Board action was not required for this reduction. 3. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 stated a member who was charged with an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request could be submitted at any time after charges had been preferred and must have included the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally issued to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. 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. d. An UOTHC is an administrative separation from the service under conditions other than honorable. It may be issued for misconduct. In a case in which an UOTHC is authorized by regulation, a member may be awarded an honorable or general discharge, if during the current enlistment period of obligated service he has been awarded a personal decoration or if warranted by the particular circumstances of a specific case. 4. 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 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. 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) AR20180015590 2 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180015590 1