DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 251 18TH STREET SOUTH, SUITE 385 
XMICHAELT.MAHONEY 

ARLINGTON, VA 22202-3531 



SAMR-RBA 7 March 2023 










MEMORANDUM FOR Case Management Division, Army Review Boards Agency, 251 18th Street South, Suite 385, Arlington, VA 22202-3531 SUBJECT: Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings for 1. Reference the attached Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings in which the Board recommended denying the applicant’s request.  2. I have reviewed the evidence presented, findings, conclusions, and Board member recommendations. I find there is sufficient evidence to grant partial relief. Therefore, under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, I direct that the Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the applicant a DD Form 214 showing: 



•Characterization of Service:  Honorable

•Separation Authority:  No change

•Separation Code:  No change

•Reentry Code:  No change

•Narrative Reason for Separation:  No change







3. Request that the corrections be completed not later than  Further request that the individual concerned and counsel, if any, as well as any Members of Congress who have shown interest be advised of this decision and that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records be furnished a copy of the correspondence. BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: 
 



Encl 









Printed on Recycled Paper 




ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF:  BOARD DATE:  13 October 2021 DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20210005869 


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  reconsideration of his previous request for upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions separation to honorable. 

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), 23 June 2020. 

FACTS: 









1.Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AC81-xxxxx on 23 June 2.The applicant provided a new argument that was not previously considered by the Board that warrants consideration at this time.3.The applicant states, in effect, he would like an upgrade because issues of his mental health contributed to his discharge.4.A review of the applicant's service records shows:a.On 3 May 1960, his legal guardian (mother) consented to his enlistment for3 years in the Regular Army (DA Form 373, Consent, Declaration of Parent or Legal Guardian). 

b.On 23 May 1960, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years at17 years of age. He completed basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, he was subsequently trained in the administration career filed, and he was awarded military occupational specialty 711.20 (Clerk Typist). He attained the grade/pay grade private first-class PFC/E-3 (Temporary). 

c.On 3 November 1960, he was assigned to Headquarters and HeadquartersCompany, Southern Area Command (SACom), Germany in the principal duty Chaplain's Assistant. His principle duty was changed to Clerk Typist on 17 July 1961. 















d. A DA Form 789 (Unit Punishment Record) shows he was punished under provision of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: (1) On 9 May 1961, for a vehicle accident (misjudging) in Munich, Germany. His punishment consisted of extra duty of 2 hours per day for 14 days. (2) On 5 June 1961, for impersonating a superior grade of sergeant or above at Building His punishment consisted of reduction to private 2/E-2. His reduction was affected on 8 June 1961. He did not appeal. (3) On 26 August 1961, for failing to stop for a halt sign and passing in a no-passing zone. His punishment consisted of 14 days of restriction. He did not appeal. (4) On 13 November 1961, for failing to properly secure his weapon and inattention to detail. His punishment consisted of 14 days of restriction. He did not appeal. (5) On 22 January 1962, for failure to repair for reveille. His punishment consisted of 14 days of restriction. He did not appeal. e. On 26 November 1962, he received a letter of appreciation and a cash award for submitting a suggestion concerning installation of radio-telephones in service unit wrecker trucks to improve operations. f. On 24 April 1963, his commanding officer completed a certificate, recommending he be barred from further reenlistments (Bar to Reenlistment Certificate). He stated: 

•The applicant had been punished under the provisions of Article 15 five times

•He had shown a flagrant disregard for military discipline and had repeatedlycommitted petty offenses not necessarily warranting trial by court-martial

•The repetitive nature of his conduct indicated an unlikely possibility the hewould develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/orbecome a satisfactory Soldier



f.On 24 April 1963, the applicant provided a statement in response to hiscommanding officer's bar to his reenlistment, stating he understood the allegations and elected not to make a statement. 

g.On 24 April 1963, his commanding officer requested his bar to reenlistmentthrough the Commanding Officer, SACom, Germany. 

h.The Commanding Officer, SACom, Germany, approval memorandum of his barto enlistment is not contained in the available records. 
i.On 1 May 1963 he departed Germany and on 10 May 1963, he arrived atU.S. Army Transfer Station, Fort Hamilton, NY. 

j.Headquarters, U.S. Army Personnel Center, Fort Hamilton Special OrdersNumber 127, 7 May 1963, released him from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-205 (Discharge and Release for the Convenience of the Government), Separation Program Number (SPN) 411 (early Release or Overseas Returnee), and transferred him to control of the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) to complete his 6 year obligation. 

k.On 10 May 1963, he was released from active duty. His DD Form 214 (ArmedForces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was REFRAD under the provisions of AR 635-205, SPN 411 (Early Release of Returnee) with a character of service of general, under honorable conditions. He completed 2 years, 11 months, and 18 days of net active service during this period with 2 years, 6 months, and 17 days of foreign service in U.S. Army Europe and had no time lost. He was awarded the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14). 

l.On 30 April 1966, he was discharged from the USAR Control Group (Standby)with a General, Under Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. 

m.On 23 June 1982 (ABCMR Docket AC82-xxxxx) denied his request for anupgrade of his discharge. In its decision, the Board noted the applicant was released from active service and transferred to the USAR 12 days prior to his ETS because of the short period of time remaining on his enlistment following his return from overseas which precluded productive reassignment. 

4.By regulation (AR 635-205), enlisted personnel may be discharged or released fromactive military service or released from military control, for the convenience of theGovernment. Separation of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the governmentand the type of discharge were the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army and wouldbe effected only by his authority.

5.By regulation (AR 635-5), Appendix I, listed all SPNs used at the time. An SPN of411 indicated early release of oversea returnees.

6.In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition and hisservice record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemencydetermination guidance.

7.MEDICAL REVIEW:

a.Applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting reconsideration of his previousrequest for an upgrade of his General, Under Honorable Conditions discharge to Honorable due to a mental health condition. The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Psychologist reviewed this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s completed DD Form 149 and supporting documents, his ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP), his separation military documentation, and the VA electronic medical record (JLV).   

b.The ABCMR ROP outlines the details and circumstances of the applicant’s militaryhistory. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 May 1960 and was released from active duty on 10 May 1963 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-205 SPN 411, Early Release Overseas Returnee after his commanding officer requested his bar to reenlistment due to a history of disciplinary action for petty offenses not necessarily warranting trial by court-martial, but demonstrating a flagrant disregard for military discipline and indicating an unlikely possibility that he would develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. His service was characterized as General, Under Honorable Conditions. 
c.Due to the period of service, no active-duty electronic medical records (AHLTA)were available for review and no hard copy medical documentation from the time of service was submitted for review. 
d.Review of VA electronic medical record (JLV) indicates that the applicant is 90%service connected to include 70% for Bipolar Disorder and 50% for Migraine Headaches. Compensation and Pension (C&P) Exam from 29 August 2013 reveals that applicant has a long history of treatment for Bipolar Disorder that began shortly after his discharge from active duty. The examiner determined that it is at least as likely as not that applicant’s Bipolar Disorder had an onset during his military service. Applicant has received minimal behavioral health treatment through the VA, but has been receiving outpatient psychiatric medication management from the VA since 2020. The VA medical record indicates no other behavioral health diagnoses.  
e.After review of all available documentation, there is evidence to support thatapplicant has a mitigating Behavioral Health Condition, Bipolar Disorder for which he is service connected. It is the opinion of the Agency psychologist that the records reasonably support that this condition existed at the time of service. Given that Bipolar Disorder is associated with emotional instability, as well as impairments in judgement and behavior, it is likely that applicant’s mitigating behavioral health condition played a direct role in the minor misconduct and unsatisfactory performance that led to his 
discharge. Under Liberal Consideration guidance, a discharge upgrade is recommended.   


BOARD DISCUSSION: 

1.After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found thatrelief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's record ofservice, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensiveand standard review based on law, policy and regulation, and published Department ofDefense guidance for liberal and clemency determinations requests for upgrade of hischaracterization of service.  Upon review of the applicant’s petition, available militaryrecords and medical review, the Board notwithstanding the advising official finding
there is evidence to support that applicant has a mitigating Behavioral Health Condition,Bipolar Disorder for which he is service connected.  The Board noted that it is theopinion of the Agency psychologist that the records reasonably support that thiscondition existed at the time of service. Given that bipolar disorder is associated withemotional instability, as well as impairments in judgement and behavior, it is likely thatapplicant’s mitigating behavioral health condition played a direct role in the minormisconduct and unsatisfactory performance that led to his discharge. Duringdeliberation, the Board found insufficient evidence that would mitigate the applicantimpersonating a superior grade of sergeant or failing to stop for a halt sign and passingin a no-passing zone.  The Board agreed there was no evidence in the record theshowed the applicant did not know right from wrong. Based on the facts andcircumstances the Board determined relief was not warranted.

2.The Board found the applicant provided insufficient evidence of post-serviceachievement or character letters of support to show honorable conduct that might havemitigated the discharge characterization. The applicant was discharged under EarlyRelease of Returnee and was provided an under honorable conditions (General)characterization of service. The Board found the evidence in mitigation does notoutweigh the severity of the pattern of misconduct and a full upgrade to honorable is notwarranted.  The applicant’s service does not meet the criteria for an honorabledischarge characterization and is not otherwise so meritorious that any othercharacterization would be inappropriate. Therefore, the Board denied relief.

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 Board found 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AC81-xxxxx on 23 June 


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.Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribesthe policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of theArmy acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each casewith the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden ofproving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

2.Army Regulation 635-205 (Personnel Separations – Discharge and Release –Convenience of the Government), in effect at the time, set forth the conditions underwhich enlisted personnel of the Army may be discharged or released from active militaryservice or released from military control, for the convenience of the Government.

a.Paragraph 2 of this regulation provided that the separation of enlisted personnelfor the convenience of the government and the type of discharge were the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army and would be effected only by his authority. 

b.Paragraph 3 provided the categories for which discharge was authorized.

c.Paragraph 7a provided for the separation of enlisted personnel with less than3 months remaining to serve. Commanders were authorized to separate overseas returnees returned to the United States with less than 3 months remaining before expirations of terms of service would be discharged for the convenience of the Government, released from active duty, and returned to former National Guard or Army Reserve status, or released from active duty and transferred to Army Reserve as appropriate. 

c.The authority (AR 635-205) and separation program number 411 for separationwould be included in directive or orders directing individuals to report to the appropriate transfer activity.  

d.Paragraph 12a stated discharge certificate, based upon the character of servicerendered and a DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) would be issued to the individual concerned. 

3.Army Regulation 635-5 (Personnel Separations - Administrative SeparationProcedures and Forms), appendix I, listed all SPNs used at the time. An SPN of 411indicated early release of oversea returnees.

4.Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), in effect now,sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel:

a.Paragraph 3-7a (Honorable Discharge) a states an honorable discharge is aseparation 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.Paragraph 3-7b (General, Under Honorable Conditions Discharge) states ageneral 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.   

5.On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readinessissued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction ofMilitary/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemencydeterminations.  Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminalsentence. 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. 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. 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//