ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD DATE: 20 August 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190007761 APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show her service is characterized as honorable in lieu of under other than honorable conditions. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Statement * Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Identification Record * Nurses License Verification Report * DD Form 214 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 she was a dedicated Soldier and her discharge was based solely on one incident during military service. Since being discharged, she has received a Doctorates Degree in Nursing and would like to serve veterans. She believes her achievements and character are unjustly defined by her discharge from the Army. 3. She provides a statement indicating her military service was halted due to ignorance on her part concerning her divorce from a German citizen. She was accused of defrauding the government by accepting basic allowance for quarters (BAQ). She was told by military defense council to pay the money back before charges were filed against her. In February 1992 she paid back $5,004.38. As a result she was charged by the military and given the option of a discharge under the provisions of chapter 10. She was told by military counsel this was the only option available. Additionally, she states: a. She was married in Germany, under German law. She returned to the United States and applied for a divorce. Neither she nor her husband were present at the divorce hearing held in the United States. The divorce was not accepted in Germany. She was confused about the procedures to be taken and didn't receive any assistance from the military judicial system because they do not handle divorces. b. On 9 April 1992, she was discharged from active duty for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial. Throughout this ordeal she was under tremendous pressure to sign the chapter 10 discharge instead of following through with the court process in which she would have had the chance to prove her innocence. c. Her accomplishments and awards throughout her military history should prove that she was a determined and dedicated Soldier. Since leaving the military she has completed a bachelor’s degree in political science, an associate’s and master’s degree in information systems, and a bachelor’s, master’s, and doctorates degree in nursing. 4. The applicant served honorably in the Regular Army (RA) from 28 April 1987 to 11 January 1990. She reenlisted in the RA for 3 years on 12 January 1990. She held military occupational specialties (MOS) 91E (Dental Specialist) and 76P (Materiel Control and Accounting Specialist). The highest rank she achieved was sergeant/E-5. 5. She served in Germany from 24 July 1988 to 22 September 1990. A DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) shows she was married on 14 March 1989 in Karlsruhe, Germany and she requested a change of her last name on 15 March 1989. The Marriage Certificate was attached at that time, but it is not in the available record. 6. On 14 December 1990, she was assigned to U.S. Army Dental Command, Fort Riley, KS, with duties in MOS 911E. 7. The applicant's record does not contain all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the discharge process, however, it contains a DD Form 214 that was prepared at the time of separation that shows, on 9 April 1992, she was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, for the good of the service, with an under other than honorable conditions character of service, in pay grade E1. She completed 4 years, 11 months, and 12 days of net active service this period. Her awards are listed as the Army Service Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, Army Achievement Metal, Army Good Conduct Medal, Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon, Army Commendation Medal, and Over Seas Service Ribbon. 8. Orders Number 66-5, Personnel Service Center, Fort Riley, KS, confirms the applicant was reduced from sergeant/E-5 to private/E-1, effective 1 April 1992. 9. Orders 059-1, Headquarters Medical Department Activity, Fort Riley, confirms the applicant was assigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point, Fort Riley, for separation processing, with a separation date of 9 April 1992. These orders show she had no dependents. 10. The applicant provides an FBI Identification Record and a Nurses License Verification Report that shows she served as a certified nurse practitioner and as a registered nurse in the State of Missouri. She is currently licensed to practice as a registered nurse in the State of Kansas. 11. Chapter 10 of the regulation, in effect at the time, provides 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, an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate. 12. The applicant contends her discharge was based solely on one incident during her military service and she was a dedicated Soldier, who received numerous awards. Since being discharged, she has received a number of degrees to include a doctorates degree in nursing and she would like the opportunity to serve veterans. She believes her achievements and character are unjustly defined by her discharge from the Army. The available evidence shows she committed an offense(s) for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge. The applicant's voluntary request for discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial and a possible felony conviction in conformance with applicable regulations. 13. The applicant served honorably in the RA from 28 April 1987 to 11 January 1990. She reenlisted for 3 years on 12 January 1990 and completed a little over two thirds of her last enlistment. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition and her service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency 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, her record of service, her marriage, the nature of her misconduct, the absence of a separation packet, her repayment of the debt, the reason for her separation and whether to apply clemency. The Board considered the evidence of post-service achievements the applicant provided 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 too harsh and that an upgrade of her discharge was appropriate. The Board concurs with the correction stated in the Administrative Note(s) that follow. 2. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was warranted. 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 the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, in addition to the correction stated in the Administrative Note(s) that follow, the Board, recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending her DD Form 214 the period of service ending 9 April 1992 to reflect in item 24 (Character of Service) – “Honorable” vice “Under other than honorable conditions.” 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): A review of the applicant’s record shows his DD Form 214 for the period ending 9 April 1992 is missing an important entry that may affect his eligibility for post-service benefits. As a result, amend item 18 (Remarks) of her DD Form 214 by adding the following entry “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 19870428 - 19900111.” 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 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 of that regulation, in effect at the time, provides 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, an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate. b. 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. c. 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. 3. Army Regulation 635-5 (Personnel Separations – Separation Documents) for Soldiers who have previously reenlisted without being issued a DD Form 214 and who are later separated with any characterization of service except “honorable,” enter, in Remarks, “CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM” (first day of service which DD Form 214 was not issued) UNTIL (date before commencement of current enlistment). Then enter the specific periods of reenlistments as prescribed above. 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 (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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20190007761 2 1