IN THE CASE OF:  
BOARD DATE: 26 July 2021 DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20210008379 
APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests, in effect, the reconsideration of his earlier request to upgrade his dishonorable discharge to honorable. 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
. DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) . Two letters of support 
FACTS: 
1. 
Incorporated herein by reference are military records, as were summarized in the previous considerations of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Numbers AC87-05752, on 5 October 1988, and AR20150003286, on 29 October 2015. 

2. 
The applicant states, on or about 5 May 1967, he was drafted into the Army of the United States (AUS). In a self-authored statement, dated 3 March 1987, the applicant writes: 


a. 
Prior to entering the Army, he had been living with his father and grandmother in Louisiana (LA); after his father died, he continued to stay with his grandmother until her death, in or around 1958. When his grandmother died, he quit school, found a job, and lived with a friend; he actually had wanted to remain in school, but he could not attend school and work at the same time, and working meant survival. 

b. 
As part of the Selective Service process, the applicant underwent a pre-induction physical; he told the doctors about his back and explained that he had experienced complications in the part of his back around his lungs, but the doctors dismissed the applicant's concerns, stating the X-rays showed no defects. When he entered active duty, they transferred him and others to Fort Polk, LA. After a few days, they put the applicant and the other Soldiers on a flatbed trailer and transported them to their basic combat training (BCT) company; that is where "all hell broke loose." 

c. 
At the BCT unit, they separated everyone into groups, according to education levels; then, they issued everyone duffle bags and marched them to a building. 


(1) 
Sergeant (SGT) S__, someone the applicant will never forget, told everyone he would call off the items they were supposed to have in their duffle bags, and, if something was missing, the Soldiers should raise their hands.  

(2) 
When SGT S__ called out an item the applicant was missing, the applicant raised his hand, but SGT S__ only glanced at the applicant and then continued. After the applicant raised his hand a second time, SGT S__ asked, "What is it, clown?" The applicant explained he was missing items, but SGT S__ just ignored the applicant and kept on naming equipment for the duffle bag. The third time SGT S__ called out an item that the applicant was missing, the applicant raised his hand once more, to which SGT S__ responded, "What's your problem?" The applicant said he did not have a problem, but the SGT had instructed everyone to raise their hands if they were missing things, and the applicant was missing items.  

(3) 
SGT S__ then marched everyone to a building to pick up their missing items; on the way out of the building, SGT S__ stopped the applicant and began cursing and threatening him for no apparent reason. The applicant and SGT S__ started to argue, and, after a few seconds, a black sergeant, named Staff Sergeant (SSG) R__, came up to the applicant loudly hollering and cursing; the black sergeant brandished a bullwhip and said he would use it against the applicant. The applicant told the black sergeant "if he would hit me with a bullwhip, somebody would die that day and I was ready to die." The applicant discloses, up to that point in his life, he had never experienced anything like this. 

(4) 
They told the applicant to report to the company's Orderly Room, and, upon entering, they instructed the applicant to stand by the wall. Eventually, someone told the applicant to knock on a door; the applicant knocked and someone told him to come in (the applicant later learned the person telling him to enter was Captain (CPT) S__). CPT  S__ asked what the problem was, and the applicant described what had occurred; CPT  S__ called the applicant a liar and an intense argument ensued, after which they put the applicant in the stockade. The applicant notes this was his first day in BCT, and, already, he was experiencing threats, cursing, and discrimination. 

d. 
At the stockade, they fed him nothing more than two pieces of bread and some lettuce three times a day, all while other prisoners got better meals. This continued for a week until they finally decided to give the applicant the same food as the other prisoners. One day, two officers arrived (CPT B and an officer whose name the applicant cannot remember); the officers said they were there to defend the applicant before a general court-martial. The applicant particularly remembers CPT B__ because, later at the applicant's court-martial, CPT B__ essentially admitted the unit was 


"railroading" the applicant, but that he (CPT B__) was powerless to do anything about it because he did not want to jeopardize his military career. 
e. At their first meeting in the stockade, the applicant told the two officer everything that had happened to him since his arrival at Fort Polk; the officers left, saying they would get back with the applicant. The stockade leadership eventually moved the applicant to a barracks across from the cellblock, and they placed the applicant on a work detail. 
(1) 
One morning, the applicant felt ill, so a guard instructed him to remain in the barracks until a doctor came by. It was very cold that morning, and 10 to 13 white prisoners decided they would not get dressed for work detail; the guards told the stockade leadership and then ordered everyone to put on their clothes and exit the barracks (by this point, the applicant had already dressed and signed up for sick call). Despite the guards knowing the applicant was not a part of the white prisoners' revolt, the guards ordered the applicant to join the white prisoners at the side of the cellblock. 

(2) 
About this time, Lieutenant (LT) H__ arrived; LT H__ pointed to the applicant and ordered the applicant to follow him. The LT and two guards (one white and one black) led the applicant into the cellblock, where they told him to strip off his clothes; the applicant removed all but his shorts, and, when LT H__ directed the applicant to take off his shorts, the applicant refused. LT H__ ordered the guards to remove the applicant's shorts, and the guards and the applicant started to scuffle. As they struggled, LT H__ came over and pushed the applicant against the wall; the applicant felt an excruciating pain in his lower back as the two guards pinned his arms to the wall (the applicant later realized there were "iron prongs," extending out about an inch from the wall, and these prongs had injured his back). 

(3) 
As the melee continued, the applicant thought to himself, "These SOBs are trying to kill me!" LT H__ had positioned himself directly in front of the applicant, with his body on the applicant; all the applicant could do was reach for LT H__'s eyes, but only ended up scratching the LT's face. They ripped off the applicant's shorts and left, leaving the applicant confined in a cell naked, cold, and in pain, The cell had a steel bunk, but no mattress and no blankets; the applicant kept asking himself "Why?"  

f. 
CPT S__ stopped by, hollering about this and that; CPT S__ tried to defend LT H__'s actions, but he had no idea what had really taken place. The applicant gave CPT  S__ a piece of his mind and told him never to come back. Later that day, some of the other prisoners gave the applicant some of their clothing and a blanket; the prisoners and a guard tried to comfort the applicant, saying LT H__'s conduct was wrong, but, from the applicant's perspective, he had only been trying to defend himself. 

g. The applicant described another incident, occurring during a holiday: 

(1) 
Some prisoners began to run around, singing, "I want to go home"; someone called in the MPs and everyone ran. In a day or two, the stockade leadership decided to conduct an investigation and called for the applicant, along with two other white prisoners, to testify about what had occurred. 

(2) 
After the first two prisoners had gone into a room to testify, it started to rain "very, very hard." Following the applicant's testimony, they instructed him to return directly to his cell, despite the heavy rain. After learning the guards had told the two white prisoners to stay and return to their cells after the rain stopped, the applicant refused to go; as a result, several guards had to force him back to the cellblock. The applicant feels, in effect, such considerations given to white prisoners, instead of black prisoners like him, were emblematic of the daily small indignities and the ongoing discrimination he had to endure. 

h. 
The prisoners and a guard suggested the applicant write his U.S. Congressman and the applicant did. In his letter, he described the conspiracy he witnessed and the ongoing discrimination and maltreatment; he had to have one of the cellblock guards sneak the letter out for mailing. The Congressman responded and said he would investigate. Shortly thereafter, they hurriedly got him out of the stockade and a special court-martial sentenced him to a forfeiture of pay for 6 months; following an appeal, they changed the sentence to 60-days' restriction and a 2-month forfeiture. Afterward, they assigned to the applicant to a different BCT unit. 

i. 
At his new BCT Company, the applicant met his first sergeant (1SG), and they talked about what had happened; the 1SG knew the applicant's circumstances and said what the applicant did took "a lot of guts." 

(1) 
The 1SG told the applicant, if he had a problem, he should see the 1SG, and they would work things out. In addition, the 1SG gave the applicant three different sets of sergeant stripes and instructed the applicant to keep the set with the most stripes and give the remainder to two other trainees of the applicant's choice. The applicant gave one set to a white trainee, and the other to a black trainee; "everything was going pretty fair." 

(2) 
The applicant's back began to bother him, so he went to the 1SG, who directed him to see the doctor. 

(a) 
The applicant notes he had complained about his back earlier while still in the stockade, but the doctor only prescribed aspirin; as the applicant's back continued to bother him, the doctor finally sent him to the hospital for X-rays. The applicant believes he spoke to a Colonel (COL) K__, who said the X-rays showed loose fragments of bone 

in the spinal area of the applicant's lower back. The COL gave the applicant some medication and sent him back to the stockade. In another instance, they took the applicant to the hospital for his back pain and the medical staff gave him a shot in the hip; the next thing he remembered was getting up from the floor. When he asked what had happened, a doctor told him they had made a mistake, in that the dosage administered was too strong. The doctor apologized, and the applicant returned to the stockade. 

(b) 
When the applicant went to the hospital again, while at his new BCT unit, the medical staff took more X-rays; because of the X-ray results, they decided to give the applicant a physical profile, which limited the applicant's activities to no running; no walking beyond a specified distance; and no crawling, lifting, or jumping. The applicant points out he never asked for this profile, they just issue it to him. 

j. 
The applicant came back from the hospital and gave his 1SG the physical profile. Shortly thereafter, the CPT and the 1SG both left the unit, and a new company commander, named First Lieutenant (1LT) B__, arrived; also assigned were Second Lieutenant (1LT) P__ and another unnamed officer. 1LT B__ had a very bad attitude, and, for some reason, he stared at the applicant quite a bit; he refused to honor the applicant's physical profile and decided to put the applicant through the same level of training as any other trainee, despite the applicant's complaints of pain.  

(1) 
One day, the Inspector General (IG) came by the company; the applicant told the IG about his experiences in the first BCT unit, what he had undergone at the stockade, and that his current commander was not honoring his physical profile, but the IG gave him no consideration. 

(2) 
The applicant also spoke to Major (MAJ) C__ (the applicant's battalion commander), who told him the Army had "kicked LT H__ out" (LT H__ was the officer who had mistreated the applicant at the stockade); the applicant "sort of" believed the MAJ, but something made him feel the MAJ was lying. 

(3) 
Additionally, the applicant went to talk to the General in charge of Fort Polk, and he tried to explain the problems he was having. The General told the applicant to leave and go through the proper channels; after that, the applicant elected not to see anyone else because it would do no good. 

k. 
Meanwhile, back at training, the applicant and the other trainees went on a long hike; the applicant thinks they called it a bivouac. The applicant developed a high fever later that morning and asked to see a doctor; several hours later, a jeep arrived and dropped the applicant off at the company. The applicant walked to the nearest infirmary, where they took the applicant's temperature and prescribed some medication.  

l. Subsequently, the BCT unit participated in an obstacle course. 

(1) 
1LT B__ told the applicant to jump from one stump to another (there were seven stumps in all). After the applicant complied, 1LT B__ directed the applicant to continue until he told the applicant to stop; the applicant confronted 1LT B__, telling him jumping violated his physical profile. 1LT  B__ said he "didn't give a damn about that profile," and ordered the applicant to continue jumping. When the applicant refused, 1LT B__ walked up and started hollering and spitting in the applicant's face. 1LT B__ again ordered the applicant to jump and the applicant refused; after they exchanged words, 1LT B__ walked away, but then, 2LT P__ approached and directed the applicant to follow him. 2LT P__ and the applicant got into a jeep and returned to the company area.  

(2) 
Later that evening, 1LT B__ sent for the applicant, and, upon entering 1LT F__ J. B__'s office, the applicant saw 1LT  B__, 2LT P__, and the other LT. 1LT B__ said, "[applicant], there's nothing wrong with you; you are trying to get out of the Army." The applicant tried to explain, but no one listened. 1LT B__ told the applicant to return to the barracks and, in the morning, not to get up and report for training.  

m. The next morning, 2LT P__ and two SGTs woke the applicant, and 2LT P__ asked why the applicant was still in bed. The applicant reminded 2LT 

D. 
that he had been present when 1LT B__ told the applicant not to fall out for reveille, but 2LT P__ denied any knowledge of what 1LT B__ had said. 2LT P__ directed the applicant to report to the Orderly Room in ten minutes; to the applicant, this was obviously all part of a conspiracy. 

(1) 
The applicant dressed and went to the Orderly Room, as instructed, and he stood at the door. As he stood there, 2LT P__ walked by him several times and went in and out of 1LT B__'s office; because it was a payday, the other trainees saw the applicant standing there as well. After no one approached the applicant for more than two hours, he decided to leave; however, shortly thereafter, 2LT P__ came looking for him with another SGT. 2LT P__ said, "[applicant], I thought I told you to report to the Orderly Room." The applicant said he had complied, and 2LT P__ had seen him there, but 2LT P__ denied everything, and he refused to let the applicant call any of the other trainees to confirm he had been at the Orderly Room. 

(2) 
The applicant returned to the Orderly Room, and, in 1LT B__'s office, 1LT B__ said the applicant would face a court-martial for disrespect and disobedience of orders. The next day, they transferred the applicant to work in a supply room on the southern part of the post. The same two CPTs showed up as his defense counsels, and the applicant remained at a barracks on south post for about two weeks. 

n. 
Finally, the day came for the applicant's court-martial; they used an armed guard to escort the applicant to the courtroom, and the two CPTs defended him. 

(1) 
CPT B__ refused to let the applicant tell the court all that had happened to him since his arrival at Fort Polk. After the prosecution and defense had presented their cases, the jury (consisting of all officers) left to reach a verdict. 

(2) 
As the applicant and his guard smoked a cigarette outside the courtroom, the guard commented that, in his view, they had railroaded the applicant. The guard offered to let the applicant escape, but the applicant declined (the applicant thought the guard may also have been a part of the conspiracy). 

(3) 
Moments later, they called the applicant back to the courtroom for the reading of the verdict; the jury found the applicant guilty of all charges and sentenced him to 5-years' confinement and a dishonorable discharge. The applicant returned to the stockade and, after several weeks, they transferred him to Fort Leavenworth, KS. 

o. 
The applicant contends he never had the opportunity to tell his side of the story, and he believes his treatment was unfair. Prior to his entry on active duty, he had never encountered such treatment; the harassment, discrimination, and inhumane actions of his chain of command were dehumanizing. The applicant felt he was a prisoner of war, and the racists who perpetrated the conspiracy against him should have gone to prison, not the applicant. The applicant states he thinks about what happened constantly, and he will never forget or forgive the way the Army's personnel treated him; he asks the Board to provide justice. 


3. 
The applicant provides two letters of support, which laud the applicant as a person who stands for what is right and just, and who has shown himself to have excellent character, a strong work ethic, and a great deal of integrity. 

4. 
The applicant's service records show: 


a. 
A DD Form 47 (Record of Induction) shows, on 5 May 1967, the applicant was inducted into the AUS; orders immediately transferred him to Fort Polk for initial entry training. Orders subsequently assigned the applicant to a BCT company, and, on 11 May 1967, he arrived at that unit. 

b. 
On or about 11 May 1967, the applicant's BCT unit placed the applicant in the Fort Polk stockade, after the applicant allegedly disobeyed lawful orders and disrespected noncommissioned officers in his BCT unit. 

c. 
On 12 May 1967, MAJ S__, the chief of the Fort Polk Mental Hygiene Service, provided a Mental Hygiene Consultation Service Certificate. MAJ S__ wrote: 


(1) 
"The individual stated he is in the stockade awaiting trial on one charge of insubordination. At the time of this interview, he had been in the Army only seven days. He stated that he was with a large number of fellow trainees and that in his opinion he was performing required duties willingly and to the best of his ability, but that one of the drill sergeants was focusing on him in a harassing manner such that he became angry and unwilling to cooperate in the least. Several other authority figures then came on the scene and the situation worsened to the point that the individual was placed in the stockade. In the psychiatric interview, the patient was polite, calm, and cooperative, but felt that he had been dealt with unjustly." 

(2) 
"After considering the past personal history and the current mental status, the diagnosis is:  Passive aggressive reaction, chronic, moderate; manifested by stubbornness, procrastination, inefficiency, and passive obstructionism. Stress:  mild, routine military duties. Predisposition:  moderate. Long history of a character and behavior disorder of the immaturity type. He quit school in the 9th grade. Impairment for further military duty: mild. LOD (line-of-duty) No, EPTS (existed prior to service)."  

(3) 
"In connection with standards prescribed in chapter 3 (Medical Fitness Standard for Retention, Promotion, and Separation, Including Retirement), AR (Army Regulation) 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), there are no mental or physical defects warranting admission to, or final disposition through, medical channels." 

(4) 
"Recommendations:  The individual has no mental illness and is therefore cleared for action as deemed appropriate by command. For the good of the man and the Army, it would appear to this examiner that the most desirable course of action would be to have him remain in the stockade as brief a time as possible and to reassign him to another unit. It would appear that he has profited from his experience and would perform satisfactorily if he could begin again." 

d. On 20 June 1967, contrary to the applicant's pleas, a special court-martial convicted the applicant of Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) violations. 
(1) The court found the applicant guilty of the following: 

(a) 
Charge I, Article 90 (Willful Disobedience of the Lawful Order of a Superior Officer), in that, on 11 May 1967, and after the applicant had received a lawful command from CPT S__ to stand at attention and keep silent, the applicant willfully disobeyed the same. 

(b) 
Charge II, Article 91 (Willful Disobedience of the Lawful Order of a Noncommissioned Officer/Treating a Noncommissioned Officer, in the Execution of his Office, with Contempt or Being Disrespectful in Language or Deportment); all violations addressed below occurred on 11 May 1967: 

• 
Following SSG R__'s lawful order to "double-time to the Orderly Room," the applicant willfully disobeyed the same 

• 
The applicant was disrespectful in language toward SSG R__ when he said, "Man, I'm not going to move on the double. Jail me if you want to" 

• 
The applicant disrespected SGT S__ by saying to him, "Man, I don't care what you do" 

• 
The applicant's language was disrespectful when he said to Platoon Sergeant (E-7) M__, "I didn't ask to be in this s__ of a b__" 


(2) The court sentenced the applicant to forfeit $30 per month for 6 months. 

e. 
Following the applicant's court-martial conviction, orders reassigned him to another BCT unit, and he arrived on 21 June 1967. 

f. 
On 22 June 1967, the special court-martial convening authority approved the applicant's court-martial sentence and ordered its execution. 

g. 
On 12 July 1967, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCMJ for behaving disrespectfully toward 1LT B__, in that the applicant said, "I'm not going to kiss anybody's a__." The imposing official (MAJ  

G. 
__, battalion commander) directed that the applicant forfeit $45 per month for 2 months and remain restricted to the company area for 60 days. 

(1) 
The applicant filed an appeal, in which he wrote that he believed his punishment was unjust: 

(a) 
The applicant contended being absent without leave (AWOL) was much more serious than his offense; yet, he knew of a Soldier in his unit who had been AWOL for 7 or 8 days, and this Soldier's punishment was less harsh. Another Soldier received NJP for disrespect, but, again, the applicant's punishment was more severe. 

(b) 
The applicant noted he had to help his mother, financially, but, after they took out his forfeiture, he would only have $77. He asked the appellate authority to reduce his punishment. 

(2) 
On 24 July 1967, the appellate authority (the applicant's brigade commander) granted the applicant appeal, in part; the appellate authority reduced the applicant's forfeiture to $15 per month for 2 months. 

h. 
On 14 September 1967, and contrary to the applicant's pleas, a general court-martial convicted the applicant of UCMJ violations: 

(1) The court found the applicant guilty of the following: 

(a) 
On 28 July 1967, the applicant violated Article 89 (Behaving with Disrespect toward a Superior Officer) by telling 1LT B__ to "get out of my face." 

(b) 
On 28 July 1967, the applicant disobeyed a lawful command from 1LT B__ to move to the head of the line, in violation of Article 90 (Willful Disobedience of the Lawful Order of a Superior Officer). 

(c) 
On 31 July 1967, the applicant disobeyed the lawful command, issued by 2LT P__, to report to the Orderly Room within 10 minutes. 

(2) 
The court sentenced the applicant to 5-years' confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge. On 14 September 1967, the applicant entered confinement. 

(3) 
On 6 October 1967, the general court-martial convening authority approved the sentence and, except for the dishonorable discharge, ordered its execution. 

i. 
Documentation of the applicant's appellate review process are not available; however, orders, dated 17 May 1968, directed the applicant's dishonorable discharge, on 20 May 1968, due to the applicant's general court-martial conviction. His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he completed 3 months of his 2-year AUS service obligation, with 290 days of lost time. The DD Form 214 lists no awards or decorations. 

j. 
On 7 June 1968, the Secretary of the Army disapproved the applicant's request for parole, but granted clemency; the Secretary of the Army remitted so much of the applicant's sentence as exceeded 1 year and 3 months. As of 7 June 1968, the applicant had served 8 months and 25 days of his 5-year confinement term. 

k. 
On 30 December 1983, the applicant filed both a DD Form 293 (Application for the Army Discharge Review Board) and a DD Form 149; on 25 January 1984, the Office of The Adjutant General, U.S. Army Reserve Components Personnel and Administration Center (RCPAC) administratively closed the applicant's requests, stating the applicant needed to apply to the ABCMR. 

l. 
On 18 March 1987, the applicant petitioned the ABCMR, requesting the upgrade of his dishonorable discharge. 

(1) 
The applicant submitted two self-authored statements, respectively dated 2 February 1987 and 3 March 1987 (applicant submitted the latter statement as part of his current application); he also provided copies of his correspondence with his U.S. Congressman (Representative F__, Senior) and U.S. Senator (J__).  

(a) 
In his 2 February 1987 statement, the applicant recounted undergoing his pre-induction physical, described his transfer to Fort Polk, and stated, at Fort Polk, Army personnel had subjected him to racial discrimination, conspiracy, and mental and physical abuse. He faced two courts-martial and the general court-martial sentenced him to confinement and a dishonorable discharge. Prior to entering the Army, he attended Catholic schools, but had to quit school after his father and grandmother passed; he worked for a janitorial service for a while, and then, after getting a job with a concrete company, a moving and storage company employed him until he was drafted. Following his discharge, he worked for a "Forest Products" company, but the company terminated him based on the applicant's complaints alleging contract violations, discrimination, and harassment. When no one acted on his complaints, the applicant sued his former employer, but his attorney "screwed up" the applicant's case; the applicant was, at the time, filing a complaint against his attorney with the bar association. After several years of being "black-balled," the applicant finally got a job with an electric company, but, as with the other places he had worked, they practiced racial discrimination; despite the assurances of change by his supervisors, nothing improved, so the applicant quit. As 2 February 1987, the applicant was unemployed. 

(b) 
The letters to the applicant's U.S. Congressman and U.S. Senator essentially requested support for his discharge upgrade; in the letter to his U.S. Congressman, he mentioned a Veterans' Center representative had alleged the government should never have drafted the applicant, based on the service number the Army had issued him, but the applicant offered no additional details. 

(2) 
On 5 October 1988, the Board concluded the applicant did not file his application within the 3-year statutory time limit; the applicant's discharge was on 20 May 1968, and the applicant should have submitted his application by 20 May 1971. Neither the evidence the applicant submitted nor documentation in the applicant's service record contained sufficient justification to excuse the applicant's failure to file on time. 

m. 
On 12 February 2015, the applicant requested the Board reconsider his earlier application. The applicant argued his chain of command had falsely accused him of wrongdoing and had treated him unfairly due to his race. The applicant submitted a handwritten version of his 3 March 1987 self-authored statement. On 29 October 2015, the Army Review Boards Agency administratively closed the applicant's request, stating AR 15-185 only allowed reconsideration requests if filed within 1 year of the ABCMR's 


original decision; in addition, a reconsideration request required new evidence. The applicant had failed to meet either criteria. 
5. The applicant essentially argues, due to the endemic racism that prevailed in the Army during the late 1960s, courts-martial unjustly convicted him and his general court-martial punishment of confinement and a dishonorable discharge was unreasonably excessive. 
a. 
Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. The Board is not empowered to set aside a conviction, but can only change the severity of the sentence the court-martial process has imposed. 

b. 
In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, his service record, and his statements in light of the published guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency. 


6. The applicant asserts, during his assignment at Fort Polk, his leadership harassed and discriminated against him; his response to the racism that he encountered contributed to the misconduct that ultimately led to his discharge. 
a. 
During the applicant's era of service, there were no explicit policies or procedures defining or prohibiting hazing or similar behaviors. The Army's Center of Military History has officially documented hazing, and noted hazing tended to serve three functions:  socialization, cohesion building, and a way to "weed out" individuals who were unfit or unwilling to serve. Military history accounts for and suggests that some of the most harrowing experiences for Soldiers took place in Basic Training. There is a long history of sanctioned abuse of hazing and bullying as early as the 1940's. Even as early as the 1950's when hazing during basic training was not regulated or even discouraged. Robust studies on hazing in the military are sparse and dated with the most recent study on hazing was published in 1992, and although it provides some valuable insights, a glaring lack of information still existed in 2012. 

b. 
In 2012, the Military Departments Service Chiefs formally and collectively created a "Zero Tolerance" posture. Department of Defense (DOD) has reported that, between Fiscal Year 2012 and Fiscal Year 2017, there were numerous initiatives, surveys, and major policy changes designed to gain traction in prevention education and training, and on the reporting of hazing and bullying. 


7. MEDICAL REVIEW: 
The applicant is applying to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for in effect, the reconsideration of his earlier request to upgrade his dishonorable discharge to honorable. 
a. 
The applicant essentially argues, due to the endemic racism that prevailed in the Army during the late 1960s, courts-martial unjustly convicted him and his general court-martial punishment of confinement and a dishonorable discharge was unreasonably excessive. 

b. 
The applicant contends he never had the opportunity to tell his side of the story, and he believes his treatment was unfair. Prior to his entry on active duty, he had never encountered such treatment; the harassment, discrimination, and inhumane actions of his chain of command were dehumanizing. The applicant felt he was a prisoner of war, and the racists who perpetrated the conspiracy against him should have gone to prison, not the applicant. The applicant states he thinks about what happened constantly, and he will never forget or forgive the way the Army's personnel treated him; he asks the Board to provide justice. 

c. 
The ABCMR Behavioral Health (BH) Advisor was asked to review this case. Documentation reviewed includes: 


. DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) . Two letters of support . Self-Authored Statements 
d. VA electronic medical record, Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) was reviewed. 
e. 
A review of the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) & Health Artifacts Image Management Solutions (HAIMS) were not reviewed as they were not in use at the time of service. 

f. 
The ABCMR Record of Proceedings details the applicant’s military service and the circumstances of the case. The ROP indicates that the applicant entered military service on 5 May 1967 and was discharged on 20 May 1968, with a dishonorable discharge, due to the applicant's general court-martial conviction. His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he completed 3 months of his 2-year AUS service obligation, with 290 days of lost time. 

g. 
On or about 11 May 1967, the applicant's BCT unit placed the applicant in the Fort Polk stockade, after the applicant allegedly disobeyed lawful orders and disrespected noncommissioned officers in his BCT unit. 

h. 
On 12 May 1967, MAJ S__, the chief of the Fort Polk Mental Hygiene Service, provided a Mental Hygiene Consultation Service Certificate. MAJ S__ wrote: 

(1) 
The individual stated he is in the stockade awaiting trial on one charge of insubordination. At the time of this interview, he had been in the Army only seven days. He stated that he was with a large number of fellow trainees and that in his opinion he was performing required duties willingly and to the best of his ability, 

but that one of the drill sergeants was focusing on him in a harassing manner such that he became angry and unwilling to cooperate in the least. Several other authority figures then came on the scene and the situation worsened to the point that the individual was placed in the stockade. In the psychiatric interview, the patient was polite, calm, and cooperative, but felt that he had been dealt with unjustly. 

(2) 
After considering the past personal history and the current mental status, the diagnosis is:  Passive aggressive reaction, chronic, moderate; manifested by stubbornness, procrastination, inefficiency, and passive obstructionism. Stress: mild, routine military duties. Predisposition:  moderate. Long history of a character and behavior disorder of the immaturity type. He quit school in the 9th grade. Impairment for further military duty: mild. LOD (line-of-duty) No, EPTS (existed prior to service). 

(3) 
In connection with standards prescribed in chapter 3 (Medical Fitness Standard for Retention, Promotion, and Separation, Including Retirement), AR (Army Regulation) 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), there are no mental or physical defects warranting admission to, or final disposition through, medical channels. 

(4) 
Recommendations: The individual has no mental illness and is therefore cleared for action as deemed appropriate by command. For the good of the man and the Army, it would appear to this examiner that the most desirable course of action would be to have him remain in the stockade as brief a time as possible and to reassign him to another unit. It would appear that he has profited from his experience and would perform satisfactorily if he could begin again. 



i. 
On 20 June 1967, contrary to the applicant's pleas, a special court-martial convicted the applicant of Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) violations. 

(1) The court found the applicant guilty of the following: 
(a) 
Charge I, Article 90 (Willful Disobedience of the Lawful Order of a Superior Officer), in that, on 11 May 1967, and after the applicant had received a lawful command from CPT S__ to stand at attention and keep silent, the applicant willfully disobeyed the same. 

(b) 
Charge II, Article 91 (Willful Disobedience of the Lawful Order of a Noncommissioned Officer/Treating a Noncommissioned Officer, in the Execution of his Office, with Contempt or Being Disrespectful in Language or Deportment); all violations addressed below occurred on 11 May 1967: 


o 
Following SSG R__'s lawful order to "double-time to the Orderly Room," the applicant willfully disobeyed the same 

o 
The applicant was disrespectful in language toward SSG R__ when he said, "Man, I'm not going to move on the double. Jail me if you want to" 

o 
The applicant disrespected SGT S__ by saying to him, "Man, I don't care what you do" 

o 
The applicant's language was disrespectful when he said to Platoon Sergeant (E-7) M__, "I didn't ask to be in this s__ of a b__" 



j. 
Following the applicant's court-martial conviction, orders reassigned him to another BCT unit, and he arrived on 21 June 1967. 

k. 
On 22 June 1967, the special court-martial convening authority approved the applicant's court-martial sentence and ordered its execution. 

l. 
On 12 July 1967, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCMJ for behaving disrespectfully toward 1LT B__, in that the applicant said, "I'm not going to kiss anybody's ass".  

m. 
On 14 September 1967, and contrary to the applicant's pleas, a general court-martial convicted the applicant of UCMJ violations: 


(1) The court found the applicant guilty of the following: 
(a) 
On 28 July 1967, the applicant violated Article 89 (Behaving with Disrespect toward a Superior Officer) by telling 1LT B__ to "get out of my face." 

(b) 
On 28 July 1967, the applicant disobeyed a lawful command from 1LT B__ to move to the head of the line, in violation of Article 90 (Willful Disobedience of the Lawful Order of a Superior Officer). 

(c) 
On 31 July 1967, the applicant disobeyed the lawful command, issued by 2LT P__, to report to the Orderly Room within 10 minutes. 


(2) 
On 18 March 1987, the applicant petitioned the ABCMR, requesting the upgrade of his dishonorable discharge. 

o. 
On 5 October 1988, the Board concluded the applicant did not file his application within the 3-year statutory time limit; the applicant's discharge was on 20 May 1968, and the applicant should have submitted his application by 20 May 1971. Neither the evidence the applicant submitted nor documentation in the applicant's service record contained sufficient justification to excuse the applicant's failure to file on time. 

p. 
On 12 February 2015, the applicant requested the Board reconsider his earlier application. The applicant argued his chain of command had falsely accused him of wrongdoing and had treated him unfairly due to his race. The applicant submitted a handwritten version of his 3 March 1987 self-authored statement. On 29 October 2015, the Army Review Boards Agency administratively closed the applicant's request, stating AR 15-185 only allowed reconsideration requests if filed within 1 year of the ABCMR's original decision; in addition, a reconsideration request required new evidence. The applicant had failed to meet either criteria. 

q. JLV contains no records. 

r. 
The applicant did not supply any medical records or documentation to support any potential mitigation for his misconduct based on a Behavioral Health perspective. 

s. 
After reviewing the available information and in accordance with the 3 Sep 2014 Hagel Liberal Consideration Memorandum and the 25 Aug 2017 Clarifying Guidance, it is the opinion of the Agency Behavioral Health advisor that the applicant does not have any mitigating BH diagnosis or condition. The applicant met retention standards at the time of discharge. The applicant does not have a service connection. Under liberal guidance, the applicant does not have any BH mitigating factors for his misconduct. 


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 considered the applicant's statement, letters of support, his record and length of his service, the frequency and nature of the misconduct and the reason for his separation.  The Board considered the findings of the medical advisor.  Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice which would warrant a change to the applicant’s characterization of service. 
BOARD VOTE: 
Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 
: : : GRANT FULL RELIEF 
: : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 
: : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING 
:XX :XXX 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, USC, section 1552(b), provides, with respect to courts-martial, and related administrative records pertaining to court-martial cases tried or reviewed under the UCMJ, action to correct any military record of the Secretary's Department may extend only to actions taken by reviewing authorities under the UCMJ or action on the sentence of a court-martial for purposes of clemency. The Secretary of the Army shall make such corrections by acting through boards of civilians within the executive part of the Army. 

2. 
AR 635-204 (Personnel Separations – Dishonorable and Bad Conduct Discharges), in effect at the time, provided for the separation of enlisted personnel with dishonorable and bad conduct discharges. This regulation stated the Army could only separate an enlisted person with a dishonorable discharge pursuant to an approved sentence of a general court-martial and upon completion of an appellate review. 

3. 
AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for enlisted administrative separations. 


a. 
Paragraph 1-9d (Honorable Discharge). An honorable discharge was a separation with honor. Separation authorities issued an honorable discharge certificate based on the Soldier's proper military behavior and proficient duty performance; a Soldier's service could be characterized as honorable if he/she received at least "Good" for conduct, and at least "Fair" for efficiency. Additionally, the Soldier could not have one general court-martial or more than one special court-martial conviction. 

b. 
Paragraph 1-9e (General Discharge). A general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions, where the Soldier's military record was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 


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. 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//