ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Record of Proceedings BOARD DATE: 14 February 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190012293 APPLICANT REQUESTS: An upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions to honorable. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Letter from Applicants Counsel * Letters of Support (x4) 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 the Board should see the five character support statements that he provided: a. Counsel’s letter, dated 20 June 2019, states the applicant desires an upgrade of his characterization of service from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable. b. Mr. VPM, President and CEO [Chief Executive Officer], McBeth Group- International states he has known the applicant 48 years. The applicant has been his closest friend, advisor, motivator, and confidant. He has relied on the applicant’s counsel through some of the most challenging or difficult times. As youngsters growing up in rural Arkansas, the applicant always impressed him with his maturity and tremendous leadership. To this day, he remains a man of integrity with a keen intellect, boundless talent, and focused energy. Importantly, the applicant combines selflessness and dedication to accomplish complex tasks with precision. Additionally, he states: (1) The applicant sets an example that makes him fortunate and proud to have him in his life. His devotion to the Dallas-Fort Worth communities can be seen in the successes of the young student-athletes he coaches. They benefit, as he has from the applicant’s qualities that make him an ideal mentor, his physical and moral courage, personal integrity, and professional commitment. This is a combination of attributes found only in a select few. (2) The applicant’s life story enables him to see and understand the challenges that lie ahead and in very important ways, has equipped and prepared him to be a role model who can provide the leadership and guidance that continues to steer so many talented student-athletes out of the darkness of despair and into the light of hope. There is no task too great for the applicant. c. Mr. JDO states, he has known the applicant 5 years. They have become good friends. The applicant is a sports performance coach. The applicant has worked with him in his Speed Technique Agility Reaction Training (START) program for the past 4 years. The applicant brings his rich portfolio of experience, creative excellence and innovative world-class techniques to the START program. The applicant is a seasoned veteran to sports performance and development training. The applicant has passion and commitment to the students and professional athletes he work with. He always devotes his intense efforts to anyone looking for improvement, and it has not failed. He is straightforward in his approach toward his business, athletes and friends. The applicant is conscientious and demonstrates a high degree of loyalty. He has a warm heart and kind spirit of giving to others that exemplify the values that are necessary for helping people to see and reach their potential. He has the innate ability to motivate. The applicant is a very intelligent and self-directed person who is able to communicate effectively and meet the most demanding challenges. He is a natural leader and does not succumb to fear or failure. He wants everyone who he comes in contact with to understand that their success goes only as far as the dedication and focus they put into it. The applicant’s wisdom and variety are unmatched. d. A letter from Bishop JRD, dated 6 February 2018, states he has known the applicant since childhood, they grew up in the same neighborhood. The applicant has always been a leader in every aspect of life. He has seen the applicant excel on the basketball court where he was very instrumental in causing the school to win its first and only State Championship. After graduation their lives changed courses. The applicant joined the Army and served our country. It was years later that they reunited. He has seen the applicant selflessly serve others giving up his time and money to better the lives of others, they have worked together on many instances to encourage the youth at home and abroad. He is thankful to have the honor of knowing a great and true Soldier as the applicant. e. Ms. HCS states she has been a Teacher/Department Head in the Dallas Independent School District for 21 years. The purpose of this letter is to provide a character reference for the applicant. She met the applicant 2 years ago when he began coaching her 13 year old son in track. The applicant has not only been a trainer for her son he has been a great Christian inspiration and mentor. He shared his military experience with her, and in lieu of the trials that he experienced he has persevered and remained an outstanding citizen, positive leader, and inspirational influence in the children's lives that he has touched. Due to the applicant’s influence her son has blossomed into a fine young man. The other youth that he trains all seem to have a lot of respect for him and are all very courteous. She thank God every day for bringing the applicant into her son's life. She appreciates the fact that her son can talk to him in the absence of his father. He is a positive male influence. He has awesome character traits. He has always been influential, positive, uplifting and encouraging to all that he comes in contact with. 3. The applicant’s service record shows he had honorable Regular Army (RA) service from 15 September 1983 through 24 June 1987 (2 years, 9 months, and 10 days). He served in Germany from 5 April 1984 through 27 September 1985 and he was reassigned to Germany again on 7 November 1986. 4. On 25 June 1987, while in Germany, he reenlisted in the RA for a term of 5 years, the overseas reenlistment option (Europe), and a service reenlistment bonus. He held military occupational specialty 91A (Medical Specialist). Specialist four was the highest rank that he achieved. 5. Between November 1986 and January 1988, he was counseled in excess of 30 separate occasions for various reasons, as documented on his separation notification. 6. On 10 June 1987, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer (NCO) to: * put the correct rank on his uniform on 1 June 1987 * to fix the deficiencies in his living quarters on 4 June 1987 * his punishment consisted of 14 days of extra duty and restriction 7. The applicant’s service record contains: a. An Alcohol Drug Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) Intake Screening Record, dated 2 January 1987, showing the diagnosis for enrollment is listed as cannabis. b. Military Police Blotter, dated 3 September 1987, listing the applicant’s name along with another individual [MAC] for wrongful possession, distribution, and use of marijuana. An investigation revealed a registered source purchased marijuana 1 gram of marijuana from MAC on 31 July and 19 August 1987. On those same dates the applicant and MAC smoked an undetermined amount of marijuana in front of the registered source. c. Memorandum for Record, dated 8 October 1987, showing a urine sample with the applicant’s identification tested positive for the contents of a controlled substance. Due to a break in the chain of custody for the sample, legal sufficiency did not exist for nonjudicial or judicial action. Without accusing him of using a controlled substance, he was warned that use of controlled substances would not be tolerated. No further action appears to have been taken. d. Two ADAPCP Client Progress Reports showing the rehabilitation method being used was awareness education and the applicant was in Track II. * On 2 February 1988, his counselors progress assessment listed as good and his commander’s appraisal of progress and military effectiveness for conduct and efficiency are rated as satisfactory * On 9 March 1988, he completed the program, his counselors progress assessment was listed as good and his commanders conduct and efficiency are rated as satisfactory * ADAPCP’s recommendation to the commander was retention on active duty 8. A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 May 1988, shows as part of the separation process, the applicant underwent a mental evaluation. He was determined to have had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings [deemed appropriate by his chain of command]; he was mentally responsible; and he met retention requirements of chapter 3, Army Regulation (AR) 40-501. 9. On 13 May 1988, the applicant’s commander advised him of his intent to separate him under the provisions of chapter 13 (Separation for Unsatisfactory Performance), AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). The commander advised the applicant the bases for his recommendation was on various specific dates he: * was absent from his appointed place of duty, on 11 different occasions * used provoking language toward a female Soldier * was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he failed to follow proper procedure with a patient * failed to comply with an order given to him by an NCO (three occasions) * failed to follow proper charge of quarters procedure by failing to perform his assigned duties * was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he failed to comply with an order and he was practicing medicine outside his scope of his knowledge * failed to complete the necessary functions and actions concerning a patient * uttered checks with insufficient funds in his bank account, twice * he was reported to have sexually harassed another Soldier 10. The applicant was advised of his rights and that he was being recommended for a general discharge, but the separation authority was not bound to follow the recommendation 11. On 13 May 1988, after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged counsel had informed him of the basis for the contemplated separation action. In addition, he affirmed he understood his rights and the effect of waiving those rights. He elected not to submit a statements in his own behalf. 12. On 2 June 1988, in his recommendation to the separation authority, the commander affirmed his basis was the applicant's unsatisfactory performance and described rehabilitative attempts. He did not make a recommendation as to character of service. 13. On 2 June 1988, the separation authority approved the commander's recommendation and directed the issuance of a general discharge under honorable conditions. On 20 July 1988, the applicant was discharged accordingly. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 4 years, 10 months, and 6 days of net active service this period. He was awarded or authorized the Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16). 14. The applicant asserts his general discharge should be upgraded to fully honorable based on the five character references he provided. His character references indicate the applicant has qualities that make him an ideal mentor, he has physical and moral courage, personal integrity, and professional commitment which are attributes found in a select few. He is conscientious and demonstrates a high degree of loyalty. He is a very intelligent and a self-directed person who is able to communicate effectively and meet the most demanding challenges. He is a natural leader and does not succumb to fear or failure. 15. Regulatory guidance required commanders to separate those Soldiers they determined were unqualified for further military service due to unsatisfactory performance. This included Soldiers who demonstrated they would not develop sufficiently to satisfactorily participate in training; were likely to be a disruptive influence; and/or attempts to retain the Soldier would have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order, and morale. 16. He completed RA service from 15 September 1983 through 24 June 1987 (2 years, 9 months, and 10 days). On 25 June 1987, he reenlisted for 5 years, and he served until he was discharged on 20 July 1988 under the provisions of chapter 13, AR 635-200, due to unsatisfactory performance, with a general discharge. 17. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, his service record, prior honorable service, and his character statements in light of the published guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, to include the DoD guidance on liberal consideration when reviewing discharge upgrade requests, the Board determined that partial relief was warranted. Based upon the lengthy list of misconduct within the record, the Board concluded that the characterization of service received at the time of separation was appropriate. However, the Board did find that the applicant did complete a term of honorable service which is not currently reflected on the applicant’s DD Form 214. For that reason, the Board recommended making that change to more accurately reflect the military service of the applicant. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF :X :X :X GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by adding the following additional statement to block 18 (Remarks) of his DD Form 214: “Continuous honorable active service from 15 September 1983 through 24 June 1987.” 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to upgrading the characterization of his discharge. 10/16/2020 X 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. 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. AR 635-200, 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. Issuance of an honorable discharge certificate was appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would clearly be inappropriate. Where there were infractions of discipline, commanders were to consider the extent thereof, as well as the seriousness of the offense. An honorable discharge could be furnished when disqualifying entries in the Soldier's military record was outweighed by subsequent honest and faithful service over a greater period of time. It was the pattern of behavior, and not the isolated instance, which commanders should consider as the governing factor. b. Chapter 13, provided that Soldiers could be separated under this provision when the commander determined he/she was unqualified for further military service because of unsatisfactory performance (i.e. the Soldier would not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in training or become a satisfactory Soldier; was likely to be a disruptive influence; and retaining the Soldier would have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order, and morale). Before initiating separation action, commanders were required to ensure the Soldier received adequate counseling and rehabilitation. The Soldier could receive either an honorable or under honorable conditions character of service. 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 (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 on the basis of 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS//