IN THE CASE OF:   
 
  BOARD DATE: 19 September 2023 
 
  DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230001208 
 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect that the authority and narrative reason for his discharge be changed to a "regular discharge". 
 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) 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, 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 he would like to have a regular discharge having completed the Basic Noncommissioned Officers Course, armor training, he was not court-martialed and had a good record while serving. He would like to be buried in a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) cemetery.  
 
3.  The applicant enlisted in the Hawaii Army National Guard (ARNG) on 13 July 1976 and entered initial active duty for training on 17 August 1976. He completed training, with award of the military occupational specialty 13B (Field Artillery Crewman) and was released from active duty on 16 December 1976 returning to his ARNG unit with an honorable characterization of service. 
 
4.  The record includes a copy of an Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 5 October 1980; however, no enlistment or service information leading up to this date is of record.   
 
5.  The applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army on 6 October 1980 for 4 years in the grade of E-4. The DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document) shows he had 3 years, 10 months, and 25 days of prior active service with 3 months and 28 days of inactive service. The available record does not contain a copy of his earlier Regular Army enlistment. 
 
6.  The applicant's available record is void of specific documentation of his service following his 1980 reenlistment except for his separation processing documents.  
 
7.  The DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) indicates separation action was initiated under Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-25 (Erroneous Enlistment). The form provides that the applicant: 
 
• last reenlistment was on 6 October 1980 

• had been reduced to E-2 on 22 February 1978 and E-1 on 6 March 1978 

• was erroneously promoted to E-4 on 1 August 1978  

• was erroneously reenlisted as an E-4 when he was an E-1  


 
8.  The separation authority approved his discharge on 28 May 1982 and the applicant was discharged on 8 June 1982. 
 
9.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows: 
 
• he was discharged in the grade of E-1 

• he had 1 year, 8 months, and 3 days of active service this period with 3 years, 10 months, and 25 days of prior active service 

• his characterization was honorable  

• he was discharged under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-25b(2)  

• his narrative reason for separation was erroneous enlistment/extension 

• his awards are listed as the Good Conduct Medal, Overseas Service Ribbon, and the Noncommissioned Officers Professional Development Ribbon 


 
10.  A review of the applicant’s service record confirms the Army Achievement Medal, for meritorious service from 20 March 1981 to 1 March 1982 as an E-4, was omitted from his DD Form 214. The award will be added to his DD Form 214 as an administrative correction and will not be considered by the Board. The Board will consider his request for a change in the narrative reason for separation. 
 
11.  There is no evidence the applicant has applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.  
 
12.  In determining whether to grant relief the Boards for Correction of Military/Navy Records (BCM/NR) can consider the applicant’s petition, arguments and assertions, and service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency guidance. 
  
BOARD DISCUSSION: 
 
After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the applicant’s military records, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicants request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, and published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The evidence shows the applicant served in the ARNG from 13 July 1976 to 5 October 1980. During this period, he entered ADT from 17 August to 16 December 1976, completed MOS training and receiving an honorable discharge. He then enlisted (or reenlisted) in the Regular Army on 6 October 1980. His available record is void of specific documentation of his service following his 1980 reenlistment except for his separation processing documents. The available record shows he had been reduced to PV2/E-2 on 22 February 1978 and PVT/E-1 on 6 March 1978, he was erroneously promoted to E-4 on 1 August 1978, and he was erroneously reenlisted as an E-4 when he was an E-1. He was honorably discharged by reason of erroneous enlistment/ extension. The Board noted that his narrative reason was assigned based on the fact that he was erroneously enlisted/reenlisted. The Board found insufficient evidence to determine if his discharge processing was in error or unjust. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the reason for separation the applicant received was not in error or unjust. 
  
BOARD VOTE: 
 
Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 
 
: : : GRANT FULL RELIEF 
 
: : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 
 
: : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING 
 
xx: xx: xx: DENY APPLICATION 
 
 
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 
 
Except for the corrections addressed in Administrative Note(s) below, 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. 
 
  9/19/2023

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): 
 
A review of the applicant’s records shows he is authorized an additional award not listed on his DD Form 214 for the period ending 8 June 1982.  As a result, amend his DD Form 214 to show award of the Army Achievement Medal.    
 
 
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 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The version in effect at that 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. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization. 
 
 c.  Chapter 5 provided the authority, criteria, and procedures for the separation of Soldiers because of an erroneous enlistment, re-enlistment or extension of enlistment, defective enlistment agreement, or fraudulent entry. 
 
3.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents that must be prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge, release from active duty service, or control of the Active Army.  It establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214 and states the narrative reason for separation is based on regulatory or other authority and can be checked against the cross reference in Army Regulation 635-5. Prior to 1 October 1979, DD Forms 214 were issued when a Soldier was discharged for immediate reenlistment.  This practice was stopped effective 1 October 1979.  
 
4.  The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to DRBs and 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//