ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD DATE: 30 April 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190000544 APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his characterization of service from under conditions other than honorable to honorable. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) 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 was young and felt that he needed to help his mother, because his dad was in and out of her life. He was conflicted between his duty to his country and his responsibility to his mother and siblings. He went absent without leave (AWOL) and he would go back, because he wanted to serve his country. He was eventually put out and he went home to help his mother. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 January 1969, for 3 years. He held military occupational specialty 72C (Telecommunications Switchboard Operator). 4. On 16 October 1969, at Fort Georg G. Meade, MD, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being AWOL from 26 August to 24 September 1969. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 20 days. According to his Enlisted Qualification Record, he was in confinement from 24 September to 27 October 1969. He was assigned to Fort Knox, KY on 11 November 1969. 5. He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on: * 20 January 1970, for being AWOL from 23 December 1969 to 19 January 1970 * 5 June 1970, for being AWOL from 1 June to 3 June 1970 * both punishments consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty, and restriction 6. At the Special Processing Battalion, Fort Meade, on 15 April 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from on or about 9 October to 25 November 1970; 4 to 8 December 1970; and from 18 December 1970 to 7 April 1971. 7. The applicant's record does not contain all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge process, however, it contains a Report of Medical Examination, dated 13 April 1971, showing as part of the discharge process, he was found medically qualified for separation. 8. His record also contains a DD Form 214 that was prepared at the time of separation that shows on 4 May 1971, he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service, with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, in pay grade E-1. He had completed 1 years, 8 months, and 23 days of active military service and he had 190 days of lost time, due to being AWOL and in confinement. 9. Special Orders Number 90, Headquarters Fort George G. Meade, dated 30 April 1971, confirms effective 4 May 1971, he was separated with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate, for the good of the service. 10. His record shows the applicant voluntary requested for discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court- martial. He was separated after receiving two NJP’s, a court-martial conviction, and he was pending a court-martial charge for being AWOL. At the time of separation he had accrued 190 days of lost time. He enlisted for 3 years and he completed more than one half of his service obligation, which is characterized as under conditions other than honorable. 11. 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: 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 evidence of 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 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20190000544 4 1