ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Record of Proceedings IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 May 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180016078 APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 293 (Review of Discharge Application) * DD Form 214 (Certification Release of Discharge) * Letters 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 made a stupid mistake as a young man by going Absent Without Leave (AWOL). He would like to have his discharge upgraded because he has been a productive member of society. 3. On 31 May 1972, the applicant entered the Regular Army on a 3 year contract at the age of 17. He completed both Basic and Advanced Individual Training and was awarded the MOS of 11E (Armor Crewman). 4. A review of the applicants records show that he received 3 Article 15s for being AWOL: * 5-8 March 1973 * 12-13 June 1973 * 2-15 October 1973 5. On 25 January 1974, the applicant was charged with one specification of AWOL from 1 November 1973 through 25 January 1974. 6. On 14 February 1974, 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 and submitted a statement in his own behalf that read in the effect: a. The reason the applicant went AWOL was to get a discharge. He came into the Army because he thought it was his duty as an American citizen, but he was wrong. b. If his discharge is denied, he will go AWOL until he gets a discharge. The Army couldn’t pay him enough money to stay in. 7. The applicant's chain of command recommended approval of his request and the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant's request directing the applicant be reduced to the grade private (PV1/E1) and he be issued an Undesirable discharge. 8. On 26 March 1974, he was discharged accordingly, his service was characterized as UOTHC. His DD 214 shows he completed 1 year, 6 months, and 1 day of total active service; and reflects the award of the marksman qualification badge for the M-16 rifle. 9. On 7 August 1980, the applicant submitted a request for discharge upgrade to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB). The Board unanimously denied the applicants request. 10. The applicant states that it bothers him that he received the discharge and he would like to have it corrected. He provided letters of support that speak on his job performance, courteousness, as well as his dependability and support of his church. 11. His records shows that he joined the Army at the age of 17, served 1.5 years of his 3 year contract, received 3 Article 15s for being in AWOL status and requested a discharge in IAW AR 635-200 chapter 10 in lieu of trial by court martial. 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: After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined there is insufficient evidence to grant relief. The board applied Office of the Secretary of Defense standards of liberal consideration and clemency to the complete evidentiary record, including the applicant’s statement and did not find any evidence of error, injustice, or inequity; the applicant had limited creditable service, no wartime service and no evidence of mitigating circumstances for the misconduct. The Board found limited evidence of remorse or post-service honorable conduct that might have mitigated the discharge characterization. The Board agreed that the applicant’s discharge characterization is appropriate. 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. X 6/18/2019 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. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS//