ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
IN THE CASE OF:  BOARD DATE: 12 March 2021 DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20200003073 
APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade of his characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to honorable. 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
. DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) . Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of Claim), page 2, dated 23 January 2020 . self-authored statement, dated 23 January 2020 
FACTS: 
1. 
The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code, section 1552(b); however, the ABCMR 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, in effect, he enlisted in the Army at the age of 17 and his mother signed for him as a minor.  His brother served as a Marine in combat during the Vietnam war and was killed at Khe Sanh in 1969. His brother's service and death in combat was his motivation for enlistment to honor his memory. After his enlistment he completed basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, and just wanted to fit in. He contends he had never been exposed to alcohol and drugs at his young age. He was then introduced to hard liquor and drugs while at the Enlisted Members Club. There were beer machines on every floor in his barracks, which encouraged his substance use, along with the freedom to do so in the barracks. 


a. 
His abuse of alcohol and drugs continued when he transferred to Fort Benning, GA, for Airborne School training. After he graduated he was transferred to Fort Bragg, NC, where he believes most of the unit members returning from overseas were also hooked on drugs and alcohol. 

b. 
There was no action taken to address the substance abuse during his period of service, which fostered an environment to support the addictive behavior. Although he 


completed his entire enlistment during his period of service, the substance abuse was a cause of his three absences without leave (AWOL).  He is trying to live a life free of substance abuse because the UOTHC discharge he received ruined his life. He believes an upgrade of his discharge would provide him with benefits for substance abuse treatment and increase his self-esteem. He is attempting to enhance his personal relationships, his outlook on life, and feel more successful through military service oriented substance abuse treatment. 
c. He is 64 years old and his life's greatest achievement was graduating from Airborne School with his jump wings.  He never felt more proud to serve than during that period. He is now homeless after having no stability and a rollercoaster of a life due to substance abuse and mental health struggles. He is capable of being better and needs help to do so. 
3. 
On 15 June 1972, at the age of 17, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of three years with parental consent. 

4. 
His record contains a series of DA Forms 2627-1 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ), which show he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on the following dates: 


. 22 August 1972 -failure to go to his appointed place of on or about 19 August 1972 . 3 January 1973 -willfully disobeyed a lawful order of a superior noncommissioned officer . 1 February 1973 -on 15 January 1973 he did without authority fail to go to his 
prescribed place of duty . 29 January 1974 -he did wrongfully appear at guard mount in uniform unshaven . 26 April 1974 -he did without authority on or about 10 April 1974 absent himself 
from guard mount until on or about 11 April 1974 . 9 May 1974 -he did without authority on or about 22 April 1974 absent himself from his appointed place of duty until on or about 24 April 1974 . 28 May 1974 -he did without authority on or about 16 May 1974 absent himself until on or about 17 May 1974 . 11 June 1974 -he did without authority on or about 30 May 1974 absent himself from his place of duty until on or about 5 June 1974 
5. His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) records his Physical Status as "PULHES – 111111" and reflects the following periods of time lost: 
. AWOL -12 February 1973 to 12 March 1973 (30 days) 
• 
AWOL - 16 March 1973 to 22 March 1973 (8 days) 

• 
AWOL - 12 April 1973 to 2 June 1973 (52 days) 

• 
Confined (CNF) - 19 June 1973 to 9 October 1973 (113 days) 

• 
AWOL - 22 April 1974 to 23 April 1974 (2 days) 

• 
AWOL - 16 May 1974 to 16 May 1974 (1 day) 

• 
AWOL - 30 May 1974 to 4 June 1974 (6 days) 


6. 
Special Court-Martial Order (SCMO) Number 22, published by Headquarters, 82nd Airborne Division Artillery, Fort Bragg, NC, on 25 July 1973, shows a special court-martial convicted the applicant of three specifications of AWOL: Specification I: AWOL on or about 12 February 1973 until 13 March 1973; Specification II: AWOL on or about 16 March 1973 until 23 March 1973; and Specification III: AWOL on or about 12 April 1973 until 2 June 1973.  The sentence, which was adjudged on 19 June 1973 and approved on 25 July 1973, included confinement at hard labor for 5 months and forfeiture of $200 per month for 5 months. 

7. 
His record contains a DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 22 July 1974, which shows the applicant had "No Psychiatric Disorder," was mentally responsible, was able to distinguish wright from wrong and adhere to the right, had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings, and met retention standards. 

8. 
A letter from the U.S. Army Enlisted Records Center, dated 7 August 1974, and enclosed report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) shows the applicant was arrested on 20 June 1974 for felony malicious mischief. 

9. 
SCMO Number 273, published by Headquarters, Fort Carson and 4TH Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Carson, CO, on 14 November 1974, shows a special court-martial convicted the applicant of being AWOL from on or about 31 July 1974 until on or about 2 September 1974.  The sentence, which was adjudged on 30 September 1974 and approved on 14 November 1974, included confinement at hard labor for 3 months, forfeiture of $200 per month for 4 months, reduction in rank/grade to private/E-1, and a bad conduct discharge. 

10. 
SCMO Number 753, Headquarters, US Disciplinary Barracks, dated 11 December 1974, shows he was restored to duty pending completion of an appellate review. 

11. 
On 8 January 1975, the United States Army Court of Military Review, affirmed the applicant's sentence of confinement at hard labor for 3 months, forfeiture of $200 per month for 4 months, reduction in rank/grade to private/E-1, and a bad conduct discharge. 

12. 
The record shows the applicant's case went before the Clemency and Parole Board on several occasions. In each instance, the Board disapproved the applicant's restoration to active duty and disapproved clemency. 

13. 
SCMO Number 19, published by Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center, Engineer and Fort Leonard Wood, MO, on 9 June 1976, states the sentence, as promulgated in SCMO Number 273, was affirmed and would be duly executed 

14. 
On 22 June 1976, the applicant was discharged from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635–200, chapter 11. He completed 3 years, 1 month, and 19 days of creditable active service. He was issued a DD Form 259A (Bad Conduct Discharge Certificate). 

15. 
The applicant's available record is void of evidence showing he was diagnosed with a mental health condition or that he received treatment for any of the aforementioned conditions. 

16. 
The Board should consider all of the applicant's statements and contentions in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. 


BOARD DISCUSSION: 
The Board carefully considered the applicant's request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, and published Department of Defense 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 reason for his separation, and whether to apply clemency. The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors and the applicant provided no evidence of post-service achievements or letters of reference in support of a clemency determination. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined the character of service the applicant received upon separation was not in error or unjust. 
BOARD VOTE: 
Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 
: : : GRANT FULL RELIEF 
: : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 
: : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING 
:XX :XX :XX 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 
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. 
REFERENCES: 
1. 
Title 10, United States Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 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 3-year statute of limitations if the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 

2. 
Army Regulation 635-200 sets the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personal. 


a. 
 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. 

b. 
 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. 

c. 
Chapter 11 (Dishonorable and Bad Conduct Discharges) outlined the steps to be taken for the separation of Soldiers who had been convicted by courts-martial and for whom the punishment included a punitive discharge.  Paragraph 11-2 (DD Form 259A (Bad Conduct Discharge)) stated a member was to be given a bad conduct discharge only pursuant to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial, following the completion of an appellate review, and after such affirmed sentence had been ordered duly executed. 


3. 
 Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), in effect at the time, stated when the general court-martial authority determines that a Soldier was to be discharged from the service under other than honorable conditions he was reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. Board action was not required for this reduction. 

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 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//