ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
IN THE CASE OF:  BOARD DATE: 22 February 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210009967 
APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of his previous request for an upgrade of his bad-conduct discharge 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
. 
DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record 

. 
Character Letters 


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 AR20180012341 on 7 August 2019. 

2. 
The applicant states, in effect, the reason he is asking for an upgraded discharge is because he was treated poorly due to the color of his skin. He would like to get health benefits and he would like to go to school. 

3. 
The applicant provides the following documents for the Board's education: 


a. A letter of support from a retired Chief Warrant Officer Three (CW3), which states in effect: 
(1) 
He was writing on behalf of the applicant because he feels he is well-deserving of a discharge upgrade. 

(2) 
The CW3 is a 21 year combat veteran with five combat deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. He also received three Bronze Stars for combat operations. He is a member of the Sergeant Audie Murphy Club and has served his country with great honor and service. 

(3) 
He has known the applicant since 2003 when they were stationed at Fort Hood, Texas. They became great friends and discussed certain challenges he was facing, while serving in the military. 

(4) 
The applicant's duty performance was exceptional and he possessed the leadership traits that set him aside from the rest of the Soldiers. He is a God fearing man of great humility and showed a caring spirit for all. He always tried his best to adhere to the military standard that governs all Soldiers. He showed great respect for his superiors and peers and would have had a great future in the Army if he would not have made the mistake he did. Even after his incident, his duty performance never altered and he continued to Soldier on and work hard for his comrades. 

(5) 
The applicant has learned from his mistakes and deserves to have his discharge upgraded so he can seek all the medical attention he needs at the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA). 

(6) 
After his discharge, the applicant was able to rehabilitate and move on with life becoming a professional licensed barber and continued to serve the community. He has also assisted hundreds of kids through positive mentorship programs and being a positive role model in the community. 

b. A letter of support from a friend, which states, in effect: 

(1) 
He was writing concerning the applicant. He was humbly but strongly requesting the Board give the applicant an opportunity to redeem his status and rank in the United States Army. The author has known and worked with the applicant and his family for years and strongly recommended him. 

(2) 
The applicant joined the United States Army to serve his country. He made some mistakes as young men will sometimes do. However, a second chance is always in order. The author knows from personal experience and extensive study that history is made by those who take a stand and believe in something larger than what the eyes can see. Give the applicant a chance. 

(3) 
The author has been working with youth for the last 50 years. They teach young people that they have to see things through because a quitter never wines, and a winner never quits. The author wants the applicant to see this through and the Board to help him see it through by reinstating his status and rank. 

c. A letter of support from a friend, which states, in effect: 

a. 
She is the vide President of The Safe Haven Center. She has over thirty-five people working under her; they have been in business for over twenty years. She has a number of programs under the umbrella, a drug reentry program for those on parole, homeless shelter for the veteran, and feeding the hungry just to name a few. 

b. 
She has known the applicant for over twenty years. He went to the center because he said he wanted to give back to his community and help his fellow people. The author's duties at the center was a supervisory position, a very stressful one. The 


applicant came on board and he was a God sent to them. The applicant took charge and relieved her from so many hats that she was wearing, at the time, he started out working as if his life depended upon it. Working with the applicant within a week, the applicant displayed such a drive to prove himself until everyone in the building talked about it. Right away everyone that met him saw he was a man of great character and integrity. His relationship with his co-workers and his compliance with personal appearance was just modeling he had no problem with authority. She saw that this was the applicant's cross to better himself and everyone that came in contact with him. 
c. When the applicant expressed his aspiration, she was a bit skeptical but he proved to be a man who she has great respect for and she can speak for everyone that have the opportunity to meet and work with him. The applicant said he and his brother joined the Army to make a difference. The author believed him and was proud of not just him but his family as well. She prayed the Board will find it in their hearts to reinstate the applicant to his rightful place and be discharged in an honorable way like every man of God. She believes it is God's will that it will be done. 
4. 
On 15 May 2003, at the age of 22 years old, the applicant joined that US Army Reserve (USAR) delayed entry program (DEP) for a period of 8 years. On 12 August 2003, he was discharged from the USAR DEP and entered active duty for a period of 6 years. Documentation showing his completion of basic training and advanced individual training were not available for the Board's consideration. 

5. 
On 12 August 2004, his duty status was changed from present for duty (PDY) to confined by military authority. On 2 December 2004, his duty status was changed from confined by military authority to PDY. 

6. 
On 5 March 2005, General Court-Martial Orders were published, which shows the applicant was found guilty at a General Court-Martial of being absent without leave from on or about 29 July 2004 to on or about 12 August 2004, striking a commissioned officer, assaulting an officer, and assaulting a noncommissioned officer. The sentence was adjudged on 2 September 2004 and included reduction to the grade of Private/E-1, forfeiture of $705 pay per month for 12 months, to be confined for 175 days and to be discharged from the Army with a bad-conduct discharge. The sentence was approved, and except for the part of the sentence extending to a bad-conduct discharge, would be executed. 

7. 
On 18 May 2005, General Court-Martial Orders were published, and state the sentence of reduction to the grade of Private/E-1, forfeiture of $795 pay per month for twelve months, confinement for 175 days, and a bad-conduct discharge had been finally affirmed. That portion of the sentence extending to confinement had been served and the bad-conduct discharge would be executed. 

8. 
On 17 July 2014, the applicant was discharged accordingly. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active duty) shows he was discharged in 


accordance with chapter 3 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) with a bad conduct discharge. 
. 
He served 10 years, 7 months, and 2 days of active service this period. 

. 
He was on excess leave from 31 December 2004 through 17 July 2014. 

. 
He had not completed his first full term of service. 

. 
He had lost time from 29 July 2004 through 2 December 2004. 

. 
He was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and Army Service Ribbon. 


9. The applicant is requesting of an upgraded discharge stating he was treated unfairly because of the color of his skin. He would like to get his health benefits and go to school. 
a. 
The applicant was court-martialed for being absent without leave, assaulting an officer, and noncommissioned officer. There was no evidence in his record that he was treated unfairly. 

b. 
Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process.  In accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the ABCMR is not empowered to set aside a conviction. Rather, it is only empowered to change the severity of the sentence imposed in the court-martial process and then only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy or instance of leniency to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. 


BOARD DISCUSSION: 
1. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found the relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicants request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, and published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, his record of service, the frequency and nature of his misconduct, and the reason for his separation. The applicant provided evidence of post-service achievements and reference letters in support of a clemency determination, but the Board found them insufficient to overcome the serious misconduct that led to the applicant’s separation. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted based upon guidance for consideration of discharge upgrade requests. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the applicant’s character of service 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, 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. 
Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. In accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the ABCMR is not empowered to set aside a conviction. Rather, it is only empowered to change the severity of the sentence imposed in the court-martial process and then only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy or instance of leniency to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. 


//NOTHING FOLLOWS//