ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
IN THE CASE OF:  BOARD DATE: 8 December2021 DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20210012669 
APPLICANT REQUESTS: upgrade of his under honorable conditions (general) discharge 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, his first sergeant (1SG) found out he was dating his daughter. Then he failed a urinalysis test. He doesn't see jump school or his Army Good Conduct Medal on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 

3. 
On 15 January 1991, the applicant, at the age of 21 years old, enlisted in the US Army for a period of 4 years. His DA form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows he went to basic Armor Training on 23 January 1991 and went to his first duty station in Germany on 23 May 1991. There is no evidence on his DA Form 2-1 that he attended or completed Airborne Training. 

4. 
On 22 January 1992, the applicant was recommended for the Army Achievement Medal for successfully completing numerous support missions while assigned to the battalion, for working beyond normal duty hours for mission support, focusing on safety, and his discipline and motivation. On 31 January 1992, the award was approved. 

5. 
On 19 November 1993, permanent orders were published awarding the applicant the Army Good Conduct Medal -1st Award for exemplary behavior, efficiency and fidelity from 15 January 1991 to 14 January 1994. 

6. 
On 30 November 1993, the applicant's urine was tested for the presence of drugs. The test results were received on 20 December 1993, and his urine was positive for the use of marijuana. 

7. 
On 4 January 1994 a Staff Sergeant (SSG) completed a statement saying he was present when the 1SG instructed the applicant that his leave would official end on 3 January 1994 and he needed to present himself to the 1SG at 0600 on 4 January 1994. A statement from a first lieutenant (1LT) on 4 January 1994, states he had the 1SG and a SSG go to the applicant room to inform him his leave was going to be cut short. He was instructed to terminate his leave on 3 January 1994 and report to work on 4 January 1994. The applicant failed to comply with those orders and did not arrive to work on 4 January 1994. 

8. 
On 5 January 1994, the applicant's duty status was changed from present for duty (PDY) to absent without leave (AWOL). On 15 January 1994, his duty status was changed from AWOL to PDY. 

9. 
On 25 January 1994, a Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG) was completed on the applicant because he was AWOL and had a positive urinalysis. 

10. 
On 25 January 1994, the applicant accepted NJP for wrongful use of marijuana from on or about 30 October 1993 to on or about 30 November 1993 and for being AWOL from on or about 4 January 1994 to on or about 15 January 1994. His punishment included reduction to Private First Class (PFC), forfeiture of $466 pay per month for two months suspended, restriction for 30 days and extra duty for 45 days.  The applicant did not appeal his punishment. 

11. 
The applicant received General Counseling Forms on: 


a. 
28 February 1994, which was separation counseling. The applicant concurred with the counseling and signed the form. 

b. 
22 April 1994, duty performance counseling wherein he had been counseled on his option to get out of the Army or being released to the Retention Control Point program. He as to serve out his remaining time as long as he maintained a positive attitude. It had been noticed, the applicant failed to maintain his portion of the agreement. The applicant concurred with the counseling and signed the form. 

c. 
22 April 2994, duty performance counseling for the prior two months. He had failed to pay his bills on time, he was late for extra duty, he failed to follow orders, and his attitude was poor and his appearance was atrocious. The applicant concurred with the counseling stating he talked to a SGT about the indebtedness and told her he was 


not getting paid and once he did he would pay her back. As for extra duty, he was showing up at the same time another Soldier showed up. He signed the form. 
12. 
On 10 May 1994, the applicant underwent a Report of Mental Status Evaluation, which shows he met the retention standards and there was no psychiatric disease or defect which warranted disposition through medical channels. He was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command. 

13. 
On 11 May 1994, he underwent a Report of Medical Examination, which shows he had not medical conditions and was cleared for separation. 

14. 
On 19 May 1994, the applicant's commander advised the applicant of his intent to separate him under chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b (Separation for Patterns of Misconduct), Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel); the stated basis for the commander's action were the applicant's wrongful use of marijuana, AWOL from 4 January 1994 to 15 January 1994, failure to pay just debts, failure to follow orders or regulations by breaking restriction, and failure to report to his appointed place of duty. The commander was recommending an under honorable (general) discharge. 

15. 
On 23 May 1994, after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged counsel had advised him of the basis for the separation action, the applicant's rights in the separation process, and the effect of waiving those rights.  The applicant affirmed he understood he was entitled to have his case heard by an administrative separation board and agreed to waive his right to a board if he received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. The applicant did not submit a statement on his own behalf. 

16. 
The applicant's chain of command recommended approval of the separation and on 23 May 1994, the appropriate separation authority approved the commander's separation recommendation and directed the applicant's under honorable conditions (general) discharge, based on paragraph 14-12b (Patterns of Misconduct), Army Regulation 635-200. On 3 June 1994, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he completed 3 years, 4 months, and 8 days of active service. He had completed his first term of service. His military education included combat lifesaver course in July 1993. He had lost time from 4 January 1994 to 14 January 1994. The applicant was awarded or authorized the: 

. 
Army Achievement Medal 

. 
Army Service Ribbon 

. 
National Defense Service Medal 

. 
Overseas Service Ribbon 

. 
Expert Marksmanship Badge Pistol 

. 
Expert Marksmanship Badge Hand Grenade 

. 
Expert Marksmanship Badge M16 Rifle 



17. 
The applicant states he had been dating his 1SG's daughter then failed a urinalysis. He doesn't see his jump school or Good Conduct Medal on his DD Form 214. He got the Good Conduct Medal prior to being positive on the urinalysis. 


a. 
The applicant's records show he accepted NJP for a positive urinalysis and for being AWOL. His records are void of evidence that he completed Airborne Training. Orders were published awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period of 15 January 1991 to 14 January 1994. He was positive on his urinalysis that was administered on 30 November 1993 and tested on 20 December 1993, prior to the ending period for his Army Good Conduct Medal. His service records were void of orders revoking the orders which awarded him the Army Good Conduct Medal. 

b. 
During the applicant's era of service, commanders could initiate separation action, under paragraph 14-12b, Army Regulation 635-200, against Soldiers who displayed a pattern of misconduct consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions. 

c. 
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, the record of service, and nature of his misconduct and the reason for his separation. The applicant provided post-service achievements or letters of support to weigh a clemency determination. 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 in support of a clemency determination. 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. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that 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 XXX 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. 
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. 
Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel. 


a. 
An honorable discharge was separation with honor.  Issuance of an honorable discharge certificate was appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would clearly be inappropriate. Where there were infractions of discipline, commanders were to consider the extent thereof, as well as the seriousness of the offense. An honorable discharge could be furnished when disqualifying entries in the Soldier's military record was outweighed by subsequent honest and faithful service over a greater period of time.  It was the pattern of behavior, and not the isolated instance, which commanders should consider as the governing factor. 

b. 
 Paragraph 14-12b stated members were subject to separation under this provision when they showed a pattern of misconduct involving acts of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities, and/or displayed conduct that was prejudicial to good order and discipline. 


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//