ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 September 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190005310 APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests upgrade of his under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Self-Authored Letter * Peer Support Specialist Supervisor Review * Four Letters/Character References * Certificate, Army Commendation Medal, 9 January 2007 – 8 January 2017 * Certificate of Retirement, dated 13 May 2017 * Certificate of Appreciation * National Guard Bureau (NGB) Certificate of Service, dated 13 May 2017 * Two DD Forms 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for periods ending 20 May 1987 and 1 September 2010 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 during his service, prior to being assigned to Fort Riley, KS, and while stationed in Korea, he experienced an event that contributed to his behavior and performance at Fort Riley, KS. He apologizes and is accountable for his actions. He attended the Motivation Improvement Course (Military Instruction Course) and passed in all areas with the exception of the test. He was given an option to be reassigned from his unit and continue his career; however, due to his age and his problems, he chose to be discharged. He made the wrong decision. He completed 18 years of service in the Army National Guard (ARNG). He completed a tour in Iraq and was honorably discharged. He asks the Board to review his conduct while he was in the ARNG. He is asking due to his honorable discharge and because he is a combat Veteran that his discharge be upgraded. He hopes his service in Iraq and service during hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and 18 years plus 2 years delayed entry as an ARNG Soldier warrants an upgrade. 3. On 23 January 1985, at the age of 20 years old, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a term of 4 years. After completing his initial entry training, he was assigned to Korea. 4. The record shows he received counseling on four occasions for having a dirty room and dirty TA-50, failing uniform and appearance standards during in-ranks inspection, and on two occasions for unsatisfactory performance. The applicant provided two statements to the commander: a. The first statement explained while in Korea he gave his life to God and how his religious belief in holiness significantly impacts him wearing long sleeves. He cites a passage from Genesis, referring to when God clothed Adam and Eve and how that relates to him wanting to wear long sleeves. He cites a passage from Proverbs and advises the commander that specific scripture is why he told Sergeant not to curse him out while they were in the field. He hates wickedness. The applicant states, if the commander will allow him to stay in the Army with his sleeves down then he will be more than glad to do the job; however, if not, then he can get a job outside. He has a good record and understands the recurring circumstances, but he is a Soldier in two Army's and the U.S. Army comes third in his life, God, Family, Country. b. The second statement explained he voluntarily joined the Army. He was unmotivated due to so called sergeant's tact [tactics]. He does not used profanity and gets upset when profanity is used toward him. He was ordered to stop the convoy even though he advised the order was wrong; he did not do it on his own accord. He was a volunteer and did not want to go correctional counseling to "so call" improve his motivation. Kick him out, he will survive because he knows who he is and has a very sound mind. If needed, they could hold this statement against him because the tact of these senior leaders is an abomination and stink in his eyes. He was a specialist and he could give someone an order without using profanity. He did what he was ordered and if it gets any worse, chapter him out. 5. On 26 February 1987, the immediate commander referred the applicant to MIC (Military Instruction Course) for training. a. The commander stated the applicant’s relationship with his supervisors was good but he was regressing due to counseling received for his lack of motivation. He performs well but slowly and without motivation; his work habits caused tension among his team members, and he was lackadaisical in performing tasks. Based on the performance in the unit, the applicant would receive an honorable discharge at expiration term of service and to promote him with his peers. Over the past several months, the applicant has lost his will to Soldier. His duty performance slipped and it was having an adverse effect on the rest of his section. The Soldier requested a transfer; however, he would not support it. b. Squad and section leaders commented: The applicant demonstrated poor initiative and very little motivation. His uniform and room appearance had been substandard and he required constant supervision to accomplish assigned tasks. c. Platoon sergeant and platoon leader commented: The applicant worked well; however, his motivation was well below standards; his reaction time to orders was extremely slow. Additional training was necessary to make him aware of his obligation to accomplish his tasks with a sense of urgency and desire. Upon successful completion of the MIC course, the platoon sergeant would accept him back. d. Commander, MIC, Training Progress notes show the applicant would not graduate from the MIC because he received marginal ratings throughout the course, failed the majority of the classroom instruction, and he failed the Army Physical Fitness Test. The commander recommended that the applicant be discharged from the military service because he had no potential in the U.S. Army. 6. On 4 May 1984, the applicant’s immediate commander notified him he was initiating separation actions against him under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Separations) and advised him of his available rights. a. The applicant acknowledged he had been notified by his consulting counsel of the pending separation action against him and the basis for the contemplated action to separate him for unsatisfactory performance. He elected not to submit statements on his own behalf. b. In the immediate commander’s recommendation, he stated he was recommending separation under AR 635-200, paragraph 13-2a, based on the applicant’s performance, he was unmotivated and his work habits caused tension among team members, attached counseling statements, and he failed MIC. On 12 May 1987, the appropriate separation authority approved the recommendation for separation; waived the rehabilitative transfer requirements, and directed that his service be characterized as under honorable conditions. 7. On 20 May 1987, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. His service was characterized as under honorable conditions. He completed 2 years, 3 months, and 28 days of net active service. 8. The applicant provided: * Peer Support Specialist Supervisor Review discussing his performance as a Peer Support Specialist while assisting veterans * Four Letters/Character References attesting to his character as an employee, and a coworker * Army Commendation Medal Certificate for the period 9 January 2007 to 8 January 2017, which shows he received the award for exceptionally meritorious service spanning a 20 year career * Certificate of Retirement, dated 13 May 2017, which shows he was honorably retired * Certificate of Appreciation for his contribution of honorable service to the country * National Guard Bureau (NGB) Certificate of Service, dated 13 May 2017, in recognition of 21 years of service in the Armed Forces, including 18 years of service in the National Guard * DD Forms 214 for periods ending 20 May 1987 (showing his service characterized as under honorable conditions) and 1 September 2010 showing he was honorably released from active duty and was awarded or authorized: * National Defense Service Medal * Global War on Terrorism Service Medal * Iraq Campaign Medal with Campaign Star * Army Service Ribbon * Overseas Service Ribbon (2nd Award) * Armed Forces Reserve Medal with "M" Device * M-16 Rifle Marksman Marksmanship Badge 8. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, his service record and post-service accomplishments 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 that there is sufficient 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 found the statement, his post-service employment, and his long period of honorable ARNG service to be compelling. The Board agreed that the evidence in this case supports upgrading the character of service given in 1987 to fully honorable. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 :X :X :X GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing his DD Form 214 for the period ending 20 May 1987 to show his service was characterized as honorable. 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): The applicant completed a period of service in Korea for which he is authorized the Korea Defense Service Medal. Add this medal to his DD Form 214 for the period ending 20 May 1987 and to his DD Form 214 for the period ending 1 September 2010. 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 (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. 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. b. Chapter 13 established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for unsatisfactory performance. Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military record. It stated commanders would separate a Soldier for unsatisfactory performance when: * it was clearly established that in the commander's judgment, the Soldier would not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier; * or the seriousness of the circumstances was such that the Soldier's retention would have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order, and morale; * and it was likely that the Soldier would be a disruptive influence in present or future duty assignments; * and it was likely that the circumstances forming the basis for initiation of separation proceedings will continue or recur; * and the ability of the Soldier to perform duties effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, was unlikely; * and the member meets retention medical standards c. Paragraph 1-18 (Counseling and Rehabilitative Requirements) stated Commanders will insure that adequate counseling and rehabilitative measures have been taken before initiating action to separate a member for various reasons to include Chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance. This counseling will be conducted per AR 350- 21 (Instruction in Benefits of an Honorable Discharge). It will be comprehensive and will include at least the following: * reason for counseling * that separation action may be initiated if the behavior continues * the type of discharge that could result from the possible separation action and the effect of each type * each counseling session required by this paragraph must be recorded in writing; DA Form 4856-R (General Counseling Form) normally should be used for this purpose d. Paragraph 1-34 states a mental health examination is required prior to a member being separated. 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 regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence and BCMRs 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 discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. a. The guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. b. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, an injustice, or clemency grounds, BCMRs shall consider the twelve stated principles in the guidance as well as eighteen individual factors related to the applicant. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20190005310 6 1