ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  5 August 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20190007624


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  The applicant requests an upgrade of his general 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).

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.  Everything was good before he was assigned to Fort Hood, TX.  In basic training he 
received a 495 out of a possible 500.  He wanted to be an Airborne Ranger to be 
trained to fight amongst the elite in the field.  He enjoyed advanced individual training, 
Field Wireman course.  He became disinterested when he was assigned to garrison 
work, washing vehicles, etc.  He was highly motivated as a field Soldier.  Given a 
second chance he is confident the Army would be proud of his creditable service and he 
would be granted an honorable discharge.

3.  On 8 February 1974, at the age of 18 years old, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a 
term of 3 years.

4.  The applicant’s record contains 20 statements/counseling statements during the 
period of 11 August 1974 to 10 December 1974, regarding but not limited to failing to 
obey orders, public intoxication, failing to report to duty, failing to pay debt, and failing to 
report to extra duty.

5.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on:

*	15 April 1974 for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 15 April 1974 and 
remaining absent until 16 April 1974
*	8 May 1974 for sleeping on his post as a sentinel
*	6 September 1974 being AWOL from 0700 hours, 3 September 1974 and 
remaining absent until 1030 hours, 3 September 1974
*	4 October 1974, on two occasions, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his 
appointed place of duty
*	7 October 1974 for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of 
duty
*	20 February 1975 for being AWOL from 20 December 1974 and remaining 
absent until 6 January 1975

6.  On 7 November 1974, the applicant’s immediate commander notified the applicant 
he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 
635-200, (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 13, paragraph 13-5a 
for unfitness for frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military 
authorities.

7.  The applicant acknowledged he had been notified of the pending separation action 
against him and he had been advised by his consulting counsel of the basis for the 
contemplated action, understood his rights, requested consideration of his case before 
a board, requested personal appearance before the board, and elected not to submit 
statements in his own behalf.  

8.  In the immediate commander’s report/recommendation, the commander stated on 
numerous occasions the applicant had been counseled by all levels of the unit chain of 
command concerning his conduct, job performance, appearance, and military bearing.  
He has been formally counseled on ten occasions, received four Article 15s, Uniform 
code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and was scheduled for trial in municipal court for public 
intoxication, disorderly conduct, and failure to appear in court.  He was indebted to a 
civilian firm since 15 June 1974 and had made no attempt to pay his debt.  He was 
barred from reenlistment due to continued disciplinary problems.  The chain of 
command recommended approval of the recommendation for separation. 

9.  On 19 February 1975, an administration separation board convened.  The board 
found that the applicant was unfit for further retention in the military service because of 
frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities and his 
rehabilitation as not deemed possible.  The board recommended that he be discharged 
for unfitness with a General Discharge Certificate.  The convening authority approved 
the board’s recommendations.

10.  On 23 April 1975, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  He was discharged 
under AR 635-200, paragraph 13-5a and his service was characterized as under 
honorable conditions.  He completed 1 year, 1 month, and 27 days of net service this 
period.  His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty), amended by DD 
Forms 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) shows:

*	He was awarded or authorized a Rifle Marksman Marksmanship Badge
*	He had 19 lost days (AWOL)

11.  The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB).  On 
20 September 1977, the ADRB denied his petition to upgrade his discharge, 
determining that the applicant was properly discharged.

12. The applicant states everything was good before he was assigned to Fort Hood, TX.  
He was highly motivated as a field Soldier.  He became disinterested when he was 
assigned to garrison work, washing vehicles, etc.  Given a second chance he is 
confident the Army would be proud of his creditable service and he would be granted an 
honorable discharge.  His record shows that he enlisted at the age of 18 years old, he 
accepted six NJPs, he was pending civil proceedings, and he had 19 days lost due to 
being AWOL.  He completed 13 months and 27 days of his 36 months contractual 
obligation.

13.  AR 635-200, chapter 13, separation for unfitness or unsuitability, paragraph 13-
5a(1), provided an individual would be subject to separation for unfitness if he or she 
exhibited frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  An 
individual separated by reason of unfitness will be furnished an undesirable discharge 
certificate, except that an honorable or general discharge certificate may be issued if the 
individual has been awarded a personal decoration or if warranted by the particular 
circumstances in his or her case.

14.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition and his 
service record in light of the published DOD 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 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, the records of counseling, the 
reason for his separation and whether to apply clemency.  The Board found insufficient 
evidence of in-service mitigation for his misconduct and performance deficiencies and 
the applicant provided no evidence of post-service achievements or letters of reference 
in support of a clemency determination.  Based upon 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

:XXX	:XXX	:XXX	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.  Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), in 
effect at the time, provided for the separation of enlisted personnel from the Regular 
Army.  It states:

	a.  Chapter 13 established policy and prescribed procedures for separating 
Soldiers for unfitness and unsuitability.  Paragraph 13-5a(1) under the provisions of 
unfitness, provided an individual would be subject to separation for unfitness if he or 
she exhibited frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  
An individual separated by reason of unfitness will be furnished an undesirable 
discharge certificate, except that an honorable or general discharge certificate may be 
issued if the individual has been awarded a personal decoration or if warranted by the 
particular circumstances in his or her case.

	b.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to 
benefits provided by law.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  An 
honorable discharge will be conditioned upon proper military behavior and proficient 
performance of duty during the member's current enlistment or current period of service 
with due consideration for the member's age, length of service, grade, and general 
aptitude.

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)	 AR20190007624

5

1