ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
IN THE CASE OF:   BOARD DATE: 16 June 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210007789 
APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests the 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). 
FACTS: 
1. 
The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10 (Armed Forces), United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b) (Correction of Military Records: Claims Incident Thereto). However, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (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 feels his character of service was unjust. At his last duty station in Germany, the drug use was out of control, and he faced a lot of peer pressure to do and try all sorts of drugs. The pressure caused his work to falter, and he did not perform to the level of quality expected of him; it seemed everything went downhill after his assignment to Germany and ultimately resulted in his discharge under honorable conditions. Nonetheless, the applicant maintains he served his country well and was a perfect Soldier until the peer pressure started. 

3. 
The applicant's service records show: 


a. 
On 22 September 1972, the applicant enlisted into the Regular Army for 3 years; he was 19 years old. Following the completion of basic combat training, the applicant underwent advanced individual training (AIT) in military occupational specialties (MOS) 63B (Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic) and 63C (Track Vehicle Mechanic). Upon the award of MOS 63C, the applicant's AIT leadership promoted him to private first class (PFC)/E-3. Orders subsequently transferred the applicant to Germany, and he arrived at his unit on 3 May 1973. 

b. 
On 7 January 1974, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for wrongfully possessing marijuana 


in hashish form and for possessing eight tablets of Mandrax (Methaqualone, a highly addictive central nervous system depressant; also sold under the brand name "Quaalude"). Punishment included reduction from PFC to private (PV2)/E-2. 
c. 
On 20 May 1974, the applicant's commander initiated bar to reenlistment action against him; the commander cited the applicant's 7 January 1974 NJP, and he noted the applicant had tested positive twice during random drug testing. On 6 June 1974, the Corps Support Command approved the bar to reenlistment. 

d. 
Effective 1 August 1974, the applicant's chain of command promoted him to PFC. On 25 September 1974, the applicant's first sergeant (1SG) informally counseled the applicant because the applicant stated he had no desire to stay in the Army and had been deliberately shirking his duties. On 23 October 1974, the 1SG formally counseled the applicant for absenting himself from his place of duty (AWOL). Subsequently, on 23 October 1974, the applicant accepted NJP for having been AWOL from his place of duty from 0900 until 1700 hours; the punishment included reduction from PFC to PV2. 

e. 
Between November and December 1974, the applicant's leadership counseled him five times: 


. 1 November 1974 – leaving his place of duty without permission . 1 November 1974 – being picked up at another Army installation for being drunk during duty hours . 20 November 1974 – constantly being away from his place of duty without 
permission . 2 December 1974 – missing formations and work days . 3 December 1974 – missing work on 3 December 1974 
f. 
On 4 December 1974, the applicant's commander advised him, using an Army Europe (AE) form, of his intent to initiate separation action against the applicant, under the provisions of paragraph 13-5b (3) (Unsuitability – Apathy), Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). The commander also prepared his separation recommendation to his higher command, using a separate AE form. In his recommendation, the commander stated the applicant had worked in different areas within his platoon but had not been able to adjust; the applicant had displayed neither the interest nor the attitude needed to perform his duties as required. Since the applicant's arrival at the unit, he had demonstrated he was not the type of Soldier the Army needed; he had failed to put forth the necessary effort to make himself a desirable Soldier, he was unwilling to take or obey orders, and he was incapable to accepting responsibility. 

g. 
On 6 December 1974, after consulting with counsel (a Judge Advocate General officer), the applicant acknowledged counsel had informed him of the basis for the separation action and waived his right to personally appear before a board of officers 


2 
with counsel. Additionally, the applicant elected not to submit statements in his own behalf. 
h. On 12 December 1974, the separation authority approved the commander's separation recommendation and directed the applicant's general discharge under honorable conditions; on 19 December 1974, orders discharged the applicant accordingly. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he completed 2 years, 2 months, and 28 days of his 3-year enlistment contract; he was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service Medal. 
4. The applicant essentially acknowledges the misconduct that led to his discharge, but contends his character of service was unjust, in that he was under a lot of peer pressure to take drugs; before his assignment to Germany, and the ensuing peer pressure, he was a good Soldier who had served his country well. 
a. 
During the applicant's era of service, paragraph 13-5b (3), AR 635-200 permitted commanders to separate Soldiers who displayed an apathetic lack of interest, defective attitudes, and/or the inability to expend effort constructively. Separation authorities could issue Soldiers separated per this provision either an honorable or a general discharge. 

b. 
In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition, his arguments and assertions, and his service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency guidance. 


BOARD DISCUSSION: 
After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted. 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, his record of service, and nature of his misconduct and the reason for his separation. The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigation to overcome the misconduct. He was discharged for misconduct and was provided an under honorable conditions (General) characterization of service. The applicant did not provide evidence of post-service achievements or letters of reference for the Board to consider in support of a clemency determination. Based upon a preponderance of evidence, the Board agreed that the applicant's discharge characterization is warranted as he did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel to receive an Honorable discharge. 
3 
BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING XX XXX XXX 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. 
ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): Not Applicable 
REFERENCES: 
1. 
Title 10, USC, 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 ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 

2. 
AR 635-200 prescribed policies and procedures for enlisted administrative separations. 


a. 
Paragraph 1-9d (Honorable Discharge) stated an honorable discharge was a separation with honor. Separation authorities should condition the issuance of an honorable discharge on proper military behavior and proficient duty performance. A separation authority could characterize a Soldier's service as honorable based on conduct ratings of at least "Good"; efficiency ratings of at least "Fair"; the Soldier could not have any general courts-martial, and the regulation allowed no more than one special court-martial conviction. 

b. 
Chapter 13 (Separation for Unfitness or Unsuitability) applied to Soldiers found to be unfit or unsuitable for military service. Paragraph 13-5b (3), AR 635-200 permitted commanders to separate Soldiers who displayed an apathetic lack of interest, defective attitudes, and/or the inability to expend effort constructively. Separation authorities could issue Soldiers separated per this provision either an honorable or a general discharge. 


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. 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//