IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 October 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220001994 APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of her U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) discharge to show a different, presumably more favorable, narrative reason for separation. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge) * Orders 07-192-00032, issued by Headquarters, 81st Regional Readiness Command, Birmingham, Alabama on 11 July 2007 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); 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 that her discharge at the time was due to a lack of a family care plan. She was asked to set up a guardian for her young child at the time, and she did not have a person to appoint. Therefore, it was determined that she must be discharged. Her discharge is honorable, but the reason states that there was a drug accusation and misconduct, and this is untrue. 3. The applicant enlisted in the USAR on 14 January 2002, for an 8-year term of service. 4. On 11 February 2003, the applicant was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Enduring Freedom for a period of 365 days. 5. On 17 December 2003, the applicant was released from active duty and returned to the USAR Control Group (Individual Ready Reserve) for completion of her service obligation with a reporting date of 17 December 2003. 6. Orders 04-012-00052, issued by the 77th U.S. Army Regional Readiness Command, Fort Totten, NY on 12 January 2004 shows the applicant was reassigned to the 800 Military Police Brigade, Uniondale, NY, effective 1 January 2004. 7. Orders 07-192-00032, issued by Headquarters, 81st Regional Readiness Command, Birmingham, AL on 11 July 2007 shows the applicant was discharged from the USAR with an honorable characterization of service, effective 11 August 2007. The specific reason is not cited. 8. The available record is void of and the applicant has not provided documentation that supports her contention that her narrative reason shows a drug accusation and/or misconduct. 9. The Board should consider the applicant's request in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was/was not warranted. The applicant’s contentions, the military record, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. Based upon the information reflected on the applicant’s separation order, the Board concluded there was no comment about drugs or other misconduct. As a result, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice warranting a correction to the applicant’s record. 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 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. 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 three 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 three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 15-185 prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. The ABCMR is not an investigative body. 3. Army Regulation 135-178 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve – Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted Reserve Component personnel. Paragraph 2-9a provides that an honorable characterization of service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier'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. 4. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Service Discharge Review Boards (DRB) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NR) on 25 July 2018, 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 court-martial forum. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court- martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. a. 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, Boards 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. b. 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// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220001994 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1