IN THE CASE OF:  
BOARD DATE:  4 November 2022 
DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20220003342 



APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of his previous requests to have his name changed from “” to “”, to have his date of birth (DOB) amended to reflect the year 1954 vice 1951, and for an upgrade to his discharge. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 


•DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)•Certificate of Birth•Social security card•Driver’s license•DD Form 214 for the period ending on 7 June 1973



FACTS: 

1.Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in theprevious consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction ofMilitary Records (ABCMR) in Docket Numbers AR20160016422 boarded on 22 May2019, and AR20190001205 boarded on 26 April 2021.

2.The applicant states his first name is incorrectly spelled on his DD Form 214(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), as well as his DOB, according tohis birth certificate and he wants an upgrade to his discharge.

3.Prior ABCMR Docket Number AR20190001205, dated 22 May 2019 already grantedthe applicant a correction to his DD Form 214 by amending his DOB to 1954, andissued him a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214). Therefore, this issue will notbe discussed further in these proceedings.



3.The applicant provides his certificate of birth, his social security card, and hisdriver’s license, which all reflect his first name as “”.4.A review of the applicant’s service record reflects the following documents:a.On 8 February 1972, he enlisted in the Regular Army. His name is shown as“”. 
b.He received four nonjudicial punishments on:



•6 September 1972: for conduct in a disorderly manner and communicating athreat

•12 October 1972: for being absent from your place of duty

•24 November 1972: for the use of an illegal pass

•7 March 1972: by not having in his possession, his pass



c.Results of Trial, shows he received a special court-martial, dated 25 January 1973, in which he was found guilty for failing to go to his appointed place of duty, failure to follow a general regulation, and breaking restriction. He received confinement for 80 days and reduction to the paygrade E-1. d. He was pending separation for in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for unfitness. He received and acknowledged all of his rights. e. On 4 June 1973, he received a Report of Mental Status evaluation, whichshows his behavior was fully alert, normal, he was fully oriented and level. His mood was level and clear, and his thought process was normal and good. f. On 4 June 1973, his discharge was approved and he was discharged pursuant to Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, with an undesirable discharge. g. DD Form 214 for the period ending on 7 June 1973 shows he was discharged with an under condition other than honorable discharge. He completed 1 year, 1 month, and 27 days of net active service this period. His first name is listed as “”. 

5.On 28 June 1974, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board torequest an upgrade to his discharge to show he received an honorable characterizationof service. The Board determined that he was properly discharged; therefore, hisrequest was denied.

6.Prior ABCMR Docket Number AR20160016442, dated 22 May 2019, shows herequested a correction to his record to show he received an honorable discharge. TheBoard noted that the evidence provided did not demonstrate the existence of a probableerror or injustice. Therefore, his request was denied.

7.Prior ABCMR Docket Number AR20190001205, dated 26 April 2021, reflects his DDForm 214 was amended, item 9 (DOB) to reflect the year “1954”, and he was issued aDD Form 215.


BOARD DISCUSSION: 

1.The Board carefully considered the applicants request and supporting documents.Based upon the name reflected on the applicant's DD Form 4 and throughout his militaryrecord, the Board concluded the applicant used the contested spelling of his first namethroughout his military service.  As a result, the Board determined there was insufficentevidence of an error  or injustice related to the spelling of the applicant's first name.2.Based upon the DOB reflected on the applicant's DD Form 4, however, the Boardconcluded the DOB reflected on the applicant's DD Form 214 was entered in error orand warranted correction.

BOARD VOTE: 

Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 

:     :     :      GRANT FULL RELIEF
:X    :X    :X     GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 
:     :     :      GRANT FORMAL HEARING
:     :     :      DENY APPLICATION 


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 

1.The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant arecommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that allDepartment of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by changingthe applicant's DOB reflected on his DD Form 214 to the one annotated on theapplicant's DD Form 4.2.The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant aportion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much ofthe application that pertains to changing the spelling of the applicant's first name.


Microsoft Office Signature Line...
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.Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlistedpersonnel.

a.Paragraph 3-7a provides an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The


honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member'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.  Only the honorable characterization may be awarded a member upon completion of his or her period of enlistment or period for which called or ordered to active duty or active duty for training, or where required under specific reasons for separation, unless an entry level status separation (uncharacterized) is warranted. 

b.Paragraph 3-7b provides a general discharge is a separation from the Army


under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a member whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 

c.Chapter 13 of this regulation provides for separation due to unsatisfactory


performance when in the commander’s judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely.  Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions. 

2.By Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separationdocuments prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from activemilitary service or control of the Army. It states that the DD Form 214 is a synopsis ofthe Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty. It provides a brief, clear-cutrecord of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement ordischarge. Item 1 (Name) is self explanatory.

3.On 25 August 2017, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel andReadiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBsand BCM/NRs when considering requests by veterans for modification of theirdischarges due in whole or in part to: mental health conditions, including PTSD,traumatic brain injury (TBI), sexual assault, or sexual harassment. Boards are to giveliberal consideration to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application forrelief is based, in whole or in part, on those conditions or experiences. The guidancefurther describes evidence sources and criteria and requires boards to consider theconditions or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for misconductthat led to the discharge.

4.On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readinessissued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction ofMilitary/Naval Records regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations.Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence andBCMRs may grant clemency regardless of the court-martial forum. However, theguidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it alsoapplies to any other corrections, including changes in discharge, which may bewarranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. The guidance does not mandaterelief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of theirequitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, aninjustice, or clemency grounds, BCMRs shall consider the twelve stated principles in theguidance as well as eighteen individual factors related to an applicant. These factorsinclude the severity of the misconduct and the length of time since the misconduct.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//