IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 May 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220011124 APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the period ending 5 June 1980, to show his social security number (SSN) as instead of , and to show his characterization of service as honorable instead of under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). Additionally, he requests a personal appearance before the Board. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: . DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) . DD Form 214, for the period ending 5 June 1980 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code, 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, in effect, he is not sure why his SSN is incorrect. His discharge was unjust because things got out of hand. He was not dealing drugs. He was young, foolish, and trusting. He drank too much and behaved stupidly on one day. 3. On 8 February 2023, the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA), Case Management Division, sent a letter to the applicant requesting a copy of his Social Security card. The applicant's case was placed on hold for 30 days. A response was not received from the applicant. A review of his application and supporting documents does not contain sufficient evidence to support his request for correction of his DD Form 214 to show his SSN as . This portion of the applicant's request will be administratively closed without Board consideration. 4. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 April 1978 for a 3-year period. The highest rank he attained was private first class/E-3. 5. A DA Form 4465 (Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program [ADAPCP] Military Client Intake and Follow-Up Record), dated 27 March 1980, shows the applicant was referred to the ADAPCP for non-resident rehabilitation as a result of investigation/apprehension. 6. Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice; however, the relevant DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) is not available for review. 7. He consulted with legal counsel on or about 6 May 1980. a. He was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the possible effects of a UOTHC discharge, and the procedures and rights that were available to him. b. After receiving legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge, for the good of the service, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations -Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 10. In his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, he acknowledged making this request free of coercion. He further acknowledged understanding if his discharge request were approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a Veteran under both Federal and State laws. c. He was advised he could submit any statements he desired in his behalf. He did not provide a statement. 8. The applicant's immediate and intermediate commanders recommended approval of his request for discharge for the good of the service, and further recommended a UOTHC discharge. 9. A Standard Form (SF) 93 (Report of Medical History), dated 16 May 1980, and the corresponding SF 88 (Report of Medical Evaluation) show he reported being in good health. The examining physician determined he was medically qualified for separation. 10. The separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service on 16 May 1980. He directed the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and be issued a DD Form 794A (UOTHC Discharge Certificate). 11. He was discharged on 5 June 1980. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for conduct triable by court-martial. His character of service was UOTHC. He was credited with 2 years, 2 months, and 2 days of net active service. 12. Administrative separations under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10 are voluntary requests for discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of a trial by court-martial. An UOTHC character of service is normally considered appropriate. 13. The Board should consider the applicant's argument and/or evidence in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. 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, his record of service, the reason for his separation and whether to apply clemency. The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors for the misconduct and the applicant provided no evidence of post-service achievements or letters of support to weigh a clemency determination. Based upon a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the character of service the applicant received upon separation was not in error or unjust. 2. The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 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, U.S. Code, 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 15-185 (ABCMR) 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. It is not an investigative body. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing. Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 3. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a provides that 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. Paragraph 3-7b provides that 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. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 4. 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. 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//