ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 May 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180016733 APPLICANT REQUESTS: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), for the period ending 13 November 1964 * letter from Seminole Community College, dated 14 May 1976 * photocopies of four identification cards FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), Section 1552 (b); 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 the record was correct at the time of his discharge. Since that time, he has never had anything bad on his record. The United States Automobile Association (USAA) suggested he ask for a change to his service characterization so some of his benefits could be recognized. He was short of completing three years of service by one year and one month. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 July 1962. 4. Before a special court-martial on 19 March 1963, at Fort Riley, Kansas, the applicant was found guilty of being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 2 February through on or about 21 February 1963. 5. The applicant accepted non-judicial punishment on 15 April 1964, under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for missing bed check on or about 14 April 1964. 6. Before a special court-martial on 29 July 1964, at Fort Riley, Kansas, the applicant was found guilty of being AWOL from on or about 2 June through on or about 9 July 1964. 7. Before a special court-martial on 6 October 1964, at Fort McPherson, Georgia, the applicant was found guilty of being AWOL from on or about 6 August through on or about 20 September 1964. 8. The applicant's commander notified the applicant on 22 October 1964 of his intent to initiate actions to separate him from service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Undesirable Habits and Traits of Character). 9. The applicant consulted with counsel and acknowledged receipt of the notification letter. He further acknowledged that he had been advised of the contemplated separation action. He elected not to be represented by counsel, or to submit statements in his own behalf. He acknowledged that as a result, he could be deprived of many or all rights and benefits as a Veteran under both Federal and State laws. 10. The applicant's commander formally recommended his separation from service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, by reason of unfitness. The separation authority approved the recommended discharge on 4 November 1964, due to unfitness, and directed the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. 11. The applicant was discharged on 13 November 1964, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208, by reason of unfitness. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he completed 1 year, 11 months, and 11 days of total active service with 175 days of time lost. He was issued a General Discharge Certificate. 12. The Board should consider the applicant's statement in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. 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 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. 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 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 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), governs the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. 3. Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, set forth the policy for administrative separation for unfitness. Paragraph 3 provided that individuals would be discharged by reason of unfitness when their records were characterized by one or more of the following: (a) frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, (b) sexual perversion, (c) drug addiction, (d) an established pattern of shirking, and/or (e) an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts. This regulation prescribed that an undesirable discharge was normally issued unless the particular circumstances warranted a general or honorable discharge. 4. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records on 25 July 2018, regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records may grant clemency regardless of the court-martial forum. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. 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, Boards 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//