IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 January 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220006580 APPLICANT REQUESTS: Upgrade of his under honorable conditions (general) discharge to an honorable discharge. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: . DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) . State Police School Safety Patrol Certificates (two) . High School Diploma, State of Board of Education . High School Equivalent Certificate . Civil Service Examination Notification . Press Article (three pages) . Certificates of Achievements and Training (16) . Notification of High School equivalency results . Character reference letters (2) FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. 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: a. When he was drafted in the Army he was married with three kids; his military pay and entitlements were insufficient to support his family. He was married by the age of 19-years old and had three kids by the age of 20-years old. He was young and made decisions that he felt were needed to sustain his family. He was absent without leave (AWOL) for 146 days, but he was working to provide for his family. He was an experienced auto-mechanic when he was drafted. He made a bad decision, but he returned from being AWOL once he had financially cared for his family. He was later separated due to his promotion potential. b. After he separated from the Army, he returned to his job at State School and returned to serving his community. He raised four children, all of which have become professional productive members of society and are career government workers. He continued his career of community service and subsequently retired from the municipality of , . He has lived an honorable life serving his community prior to and after his military service. He is requesting to right this situation so that his legacy will be one of an honorable discharge. 3. The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 29 January 1971. 4. Before a special court-martial on or about 2 December 1971, at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, the applicant was found guilty of being AWOL from on or about 20 September 1971 through on or about 15 November 1971. His punishment included confinement at hard labor for four months, forfeiture of $80.00 per month for two months, and to be reduced to the grade of E-1. The sentence was approved on 6 December 1971. 5. On 24 August 1972, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being AWOL from on or about 21 August 1972 to on or about 22 August 1972. His punishment included reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $50.00 for one month, and 14 days of extra duty. 6. Before a summary court-martial on or about 27 October 1972, at Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, the applicant was found guilty of through neglect, missing a movement, on or about 2 October 1972. His punishment included hard labor without confinement for 40 days. The sentence was approved on 30 October 1972. 7. The available record is void of the applicant's notification memorandum. 8. On 30 October 1972, the applicant's commander formally recommended the applicant's separation from service under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), Chapter 4, Qualitative Management Program (QMP), for failure to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion advancement. His commander recommended he receive a general service characterization. 9. On the same date, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 10. The separation authority approved the recommended discharge on 7 November 1972 and directed the issuance of a DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate). 11. On 8 November 1972, the applicant accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, for being AWOL from on or about 2 November 1972 to on or about 6 November 1972. 12. A Standard Form 93 (Report of Medical History) dated 19 December 1972 shows he underwent a medical exam prior to separation and noted that he was in good health and was not on medication. 13. On 4 January 1973, the applicant was discharged. His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States report of Transfer or Discharge) confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Department of the Army message 242110Z September 71, with Separation Program Number "21U" (failure to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion). He was credited with 1 year, 6 months and 10 days of net active service. His service was characterized as under honorable conditions. 14. The applicant provides the following: . two safety patrol certificates dated 15 June 1965 and 17 June 1966 . State of Board of Education High school Diploma and equivalent certificate, May 1973 . Civil Service Examination Certification, 3 July 1985 . three undated pages of city press articles, Reference: Applicant Mechanic work . 16-pages of post military certification and training certificates . Inquiry for the Department of Education, dated 7 February 1992 . two character reference letters attesting to him being a wonderful and caring person in the community, who has been a dedicated maintenance worker that helps everyone 15. Clemency guidance to the Boards for Correction of Military/Navy Records (BCM/NR) does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority to ensure each case will be assessed on its own merits. In determining whether to grant relief 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. This includes consideration of changes in policy, whereby a service member under the same circumstances today would reasonably be expected to receive a more favorable outcome. 16. Published guidance to the BCM/NRs clearly indicates that the guidance is not intended to interfere or impede on the Board's statutory independence. The Board will determine the relative weight of the action that led to the discharge and whether it supports relief or not. In reaching its determination, the Board shall consider the applicant's petition, available records and/or submitted documents in support of the petition. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application, all supporting documents and the evidence found within the military records, the Board determined that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal consideration when reviewing discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant’s post-service accomplishments. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the character of service the applicant received upon separation was not in error or unjust. 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 600-200, Chapter 4, then in effect, set forth policy and prescribed procedures for denying reenlistment under the QMP. That program was based on the premise that reenlistment was a privilege for those whose performance, conduct, attitude, and potential for advancement met Army standards. It was designed to enhance the quality of the career enlisted force, selectively retain the best qualified Soldiers to 30 years of active duty, deny reenlistment to non-progressive and nonproductive Soldiers, and encourage Soldiers to maintain their eligibility for further service. Department of the Army (DAPE-MPP) Message Number 242110Z, dated September 1971, extended the provisions of the QMP to allow for the early separation of Soldiers in the grades of E-1 and E-2 who had failed to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion advancement. 3. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The version in effect at the time provided that: a. An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. 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. b. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Commanders who elect not to promote a Soldier to E-2 or E-3 may elect to initiate separation. Normally, an honorable discharge would be awarded unless the Soldier's conduct clearly substantiated a general discharge. 4. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and 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. 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, 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. 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//