ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Record of Proceedings IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 July 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190006525 APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant request his under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) 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 a great Soldier who never got into any trouble and did not make rank because he was never put in for it. His Sergeant told him he could get out due to this. He wants to get into a program with the state and they require an honorable discharge. 3. On 31 January 1973, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for two years at the age of 18. 4. On 1 February 1974, he was formerly counseled for being below standard job performance; being uncooperative with non-commissioned officers (NCO’s); lacking initiative. He was denied promotion because lacked the necessary standards of conduct and ability required by an enlisted personnel. 5. On 4 February 1974, he underwent a medical and mental evaluation; he was found qualified for separation. 6. On 11 February 1974, the applicant was formerly counseled failing to get a haircut; failing to stand in company formation; for not being recommended for promotion because he failed to demonstrate and meet standards of conduct and ability required by the U.S. Army subsequently recommended for elimination from the service. The applicant acknowledged the impact the action and that he understood as a result of his past actions he may receive a general discharge. 7. On 12 February 1974, the applicant received a formal counseling for being absent from the company formation. In summary the applicant was observed for 30 days and failed to maintain the standards of conduct and ability required by the U.S. Army and he was being considered for QMP. 8. On 19 March 1974, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program) of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) with a general discharge. The commander stated the reasons for his proposed action were the applicant’s potential for continued effective service fell below the standards required for enlisted personnel set by the U.S. Army. He has been counseled on more than one occasion by the commander concerning his duties and standards of conduct of a Wireman and his failure to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion to E-3. a. The applicant was advised by his commander of his available rights, indicated he would not submit a statement on his own behalf, and acknowledged the commanders proposed discharge action. b. The applicant’s intermediate commander’s endorsed the separation recommendation and on 28 March 1974, the appropriate authority approved the discharge and directed the applicant be issued an honorable discharge certificate. 9. On 16 April 1974, the applicant was discharged accordingly. He completed 1 year, 2 months, and 16 days. 10. In 1973, U.S. Army initiated the Expeditious Discharge Program as a test; it gave commanders the opportunity to separate unproductive Soldiers who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of active duty and who had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel in the Army. The program required Soldiers to voluntarily accept discharge and they could receive either an honorable or general discharge. 11. The applicant states he was a great Soldier who never got into any trouble and did not make rank because he was never put in for it. He wants to get into a program with the state and they require an honorable discharge. His record shows he graduated high school; completed basic combat training (BCT) as well as advanced individual training (AIT) and was awarded military occupational skill (MOS), 36K20 (Field Wireman); the highest rank held was Private (E-2); he was a patient at the 97th General Hospital while stationed in Germany from on 29 August 1973 to on or about 13 September 1973. 12. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, his service record, and his statements in light of the published guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the records and published guidance for consideration of discharge upgrades. The Board considered the applicant’s statement, the behaviors that resulted in is separation and whether to apply clemency. The Board majority found insufficient mitigation to upgrade his discharge and the applicant provided no evidence of post- service achievements or letters of reference in support of clemency. Based on the preponderance of evidence, the Board majority determined that the character of service the applicant received at separation was not in error or unjust; one Board member determined that a general discharge was too harsh, that clemency should apply and recommended an upgrade to honorable. 2. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board majority determined that relief was not warranted. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : :x GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :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. 8/5/2019 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 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. The Department of the Army began testing the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) in October 1973. In a message, dated 8 November 1974, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel announced the expansion of the EDP. The program provided for the separation of Soldiers whose acceptability, performance of duty, and/or potential for continued effective service fell below the standards required for retention in the Army. Soldiers could be separated under this program when subjective evaluation of their commanders identified them as lacking qualities for continued military service because of attitude, motivation, self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential. An honorable or general discharge was required and there has never been any provision for an automatic upgrade of a discharge less than fully honorable. 3. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separation – Enlisted Personnel) in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 5-37, discharge for failure to demonstrate promotion potential, of the regulation, in effect at the time, provided for the discharge of enlisted personnel who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of active duty and who had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel in the Army because of the existence of one or more of the following conditions: poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential. No individual would be discharged under this program unless the individual voluntarily consented to the proposed discharge. Individuals discharged under this regulation were issued either a general or honorable discharge. b. An honorable discharge is a separation with honor. Issuance of an honorable discharge will be conditioned upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member's current enlistment of current period of service with due consideration for the member's age, length of service, grade, and general aptitude. 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 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.