ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 January 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190005348 APPLICANT REQUESTS: His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 26 February 2019 * DD Forms 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the periods ending 17 April 1990 and 6 September 1984 * three third party letters of support 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 he served honorably in the U.S. Navy Reserve (USNR). He was wrong in the Army. 3. The applicant enlisted in the USNR on 29 May 1984. He served on active duty from 29 May 1984 through 6 September 1984. He completed his initial active duty for training, was released from active duty, and was returned to the control of his USNR. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 January 1986. 4. Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 26 September 1989, for violations of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The relevant DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) shows he was charged with being absent without leave (AWOL), from on or about 8 April 1987 through on or about 17 September 1989. 5. The applicant consulted with legal counsel on or about 26 September 1989. 1 a. He was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of a UOTHC discharge, and the procedures and rights that were available to him. b. Subsequent to receiving legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court- martial. In his request for discharge, he acknowledged his understanding that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge against him, or of a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. He further acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request was approved he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. c. He was advised he could submit any statements he desired in his own behalf. He declined to make a statement. 6. The separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge on 29 March 1990, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial, and directed that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and that he be discharged UOTHC. 7. The applicant was discharged on 17 April 1990, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. His DD Form 214 confirms he was discharged in the lowest enlisted grade and his service was characterized as UOTHC. 8. The applicant was charged due to the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. Subsequent to being charged, he consulted with counsel and requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10. Such discharges are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 9. The applicant provides three third party letters of support. The authors state the applicant is a good man. He wishes he could go back and do things differently. He has worked hard to provide a loving home for his wife. He now has medical problems that interfere with his daily life. He needs to have his Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits eligibility reinstated. 10. The Board should consider the applicant's statement in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. 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 considered the applicant’s statement, his record of service, the frequency and nature of his misconduct, court-martial charges, his request for discharge and the reason for his separation. The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigation to overcome the misconduct and the applicant provided no evidence of post-service achievements. The Board considered the letters of support , but found them insufficient to make a favorable clemency determination. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the character of service the applicant received upon separation was not in error or unjust. 2. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted. 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 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 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, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. 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. b. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 3. 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//