ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Record of Proceedings BOARD DATE: 3 February 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190012495 APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of the previous Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decision promulgated in Docket Number AR20190001016 on 30 April 2019. Specifically, he requests: a. His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. b. Retroactive payment for his attendance at scheduled unit trainings, for which he contends he was not paid. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * a two page letter requesting reconsideration, dated 4 August 2019 FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20190001016 on 30 April 2019. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that he is presenting new evidence that shows he was stationed at the 139th General Hospital in Patton, Bell, California and was never paid for his scheduled unit training. He would like to receive his pay from 30 years ago. He never received orders regarding his discharge until 21 November 2018. He would like his discharge upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge 3. The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 27 June 1978. He served on active duty from 30 June 1978 through 18 October 1978. He completed his initial active duty training (ADT) and was released from active duty and returned to the control of his USAR unit of assignment. 4. The applicant was reassigned on 8 November 1978, to the 349th General Hospital in Bell, CA, due to his change of residence. He was reassigned on 1 February 1980, to the 705th Transportation Company in Dayton, OH. 5. Commencing 13 September 1980, the applicant failed to report for drill weekends. He accrued over 10 unexcused absences within a one-year period and was declared an unsatisfactory participant. The command made all attempts by means available to contact the applicant but were unsuccessful. 6. The applicant’s unit commander initiated separation proceedings on 8 January 1981, for misconduct due to unsatisfactory participation. He was told that his request met the regulatory requirement for a board of officers and since he was being boarded in absentia, no further written notice was required. 7. A board of officers convened on 15 April 1981 and the board determined that the applicant should be transferred to the IRR because of misconduct (unsatisfactory participation) with a tentative characterization of service of UOTHC. 8. Orders 122-186, issued by Headquarters, Fifth U.S. Army, Fort Sam Houston, TX on 24 June 1981, released the applicant from assignment to the 705th Transportation Company, by reason of unsatisfactory participation, and assigned him to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training). His service was characterized as UOTHC 9. Orders D-11-908848, issued by the USAR Personnel Center (ARPERCEN), St. Louis, MO on 26 November 1984, discharged the applicant from the USAR effective 26 November 1984. These orders cite the authority for his separation as Army Regulation 135-178 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve – Enlisted Administrative Separations) and show his service was characterized as UOTHC. 10. The applicant petitioned the ABCMR for an upgrade of his discharge. The ABCMR considered his petition and denied his request on 30 April 2019. 11. The applicant did not provide documentation to support his contention that he was not paid for service he completed with the 139th General Hospital in Patton, Bell CA. Nevertheless, the payment of duty performed is not a function of this Board. The Board exists to correct errors or injustices, in the form of records corrections. While it is possible that such corrections could result in payment from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, such payments could only result from the correction of a clearly defined error or injustice within the applicant's record. 12. The Board may consider the applicant's petition, his service record, and his 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 relief was not warranted. The Board found insufficient evidence on in-service mitigation and the applicant provided no evidence of post-service achievements or letters of reference in support of a clemency determination. Based upon the multiple unit drills missed during the applicant’s USAR service, the Board found insufficient evidence of an error or injustice which would warrant a change to the characterization of service. Additionally, the Board found insufficient evidence to corroborate the applicant’s statement that he was not paid for completed unit drills. Therefore, the Board determined relief concerning retroactive payment for drills 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 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, U.S. Code, 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 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 3. Army Regulation 135-178 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of Reserve Component enlisted personnel. a. An honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier'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. If a Soldier's service has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as under honorable conditions. Characterization of service as general (under honorable conditions) is warranted when significant negative aspects of the Soldier's conduct or performance of duty outweigh positive aspects of the Soldier's military record. c. Service may be characterized as under other than honorable conditions only when discharge is for misconduct, fraudulent entry, unsatisfactory participation, or security reasons. d. A discharge where service is characterized as under other than honorable conditions will be directed only by a general officer in command who has a judge advocate or legal advisor available to the command, or a higher authority. e. No Soldier will be discharged in accordance with this regulation, with service characterized as UOTHC, unless he or she is afforded the right to present his or her case before an administrative separation board. The Soldier will be afforded the advice and assistance of counsel. Such discharge must be supported by approved board findings, and an approved board recommendation for discharge UOTHC. 4. 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//