ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
IN THE CASE OF:   BOARD DATE: 12 April 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210005058 
APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant, in effect, requests reconsideration to upgrade his undesirable discharge to general, under honorable conditions. 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
. 
DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) 

. 
DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) 

. 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) correspondence 

. 
Statement in Support of Claim 

. 
Self-written statements 

. 
Medical documents 

. 
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) administrative close letter dated 3 March 2020 

. 
One (1) page of his Enlisted Qualification Record 


FACTS: 
1. 
Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20160013330 on 5 February 2019. 

2. 
The applicant states he would be really pleased if the Board granted his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 


a. 
He was young at the time he was drafted and was not familiar with War at the time.  His mother called him and told him that his brother had volunteered to enlist in the Army, was sent to Vietnam and went absent without leave (AWOL) with some fellow soldiers and they could [not?] find him.  As a result, the applicant was worried and depressed; he went on leave and then he started going AWOL. When he was asked if he wanted to be discharged he said "yes." 

b. 
At the time he was inducted he had a hearing problems and the Army knew it and proceeding to induct him.  His hearing declined more during the time he served, 


however, he was discharged before he was able to see a doctor. He is 72 years old and if he could go back and service his country he would. He is a veteran; he has been in the military so why is this so hard? He would hate to think otherwise, racism. He paid for his mistake by them taking money out of his pay and serving time in the stockade. 
3. 
On 18 February 1969, at the age of 20 years old and one year of High School [9th grade education], the applicant was inducted in the Army of the United States for a period of 2 years. 

4. 
His record shows: 


a. On 24 March 1969, he reported to Basic Combat Training. 
(1) 
In May 1969, he received non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being AWOL from 16 to 17 May 1969. In June of 1969, the applicant received NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ for being AWOL from 2 to 10 June 1969 

(2) 
His enlisted qualification record shows conduct and efficiency ratings of unsatisfactory and fair with reason being AWOL. 

b. 
He successfully completed Advanced Individual Training with conduct and efficiency ratings of excellent. 

c. 
His enlisted qualification record show upon completion of training, 10 October 1969, he was to be assigned to USARPAC (United States Army Pacific Command) [Republic of Vietnam] and dropped from rolls on 28 January 1970; however, those two items are lined thru and show him as enroute to Fort Sill, OK on 10 October 1969. 


5. 
Special Court-Martial Order 618, issued by Headquarters, Special Troops, Fort Dix, NJ, dated 17 March 1970, shows he was convicted of being AWOL from 24 October 1969 until 21 February 1970.  He was sentenced to forfeit $58 per month for 3 months and restriction for 60 days.  Only the portion of the sentence providing for forfeiture of pay was approved and duly executed. 

6. 
A Morning Report contained in his record shows he was reported AWOL on 9 April 1970 and dropped from unit rolls on 9 May 1970. The applicant returned to military control on 26 May 1970. 

7. 
On 28 May 1970, after consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). He acknowledged that, he had not been subjected to coercion with respect 


2 
to his request for discharge and he had been advised of the implications that were attached to his request for discharge. 
a. 
Counsel advised the applicant of the basis for his contemplated trial by court-martial under circumstances which could lead to a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge; of the effects of his request for discharge and the rights available to him. The applicant personally made the choices indicated in the request for discharge. 

b. 
The applicant acknowledged that, he understood if the request for discharge was accepted, he may have been furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. The applicant elected not to submit statements in his own behalf. 

c. 
His chain of command recommended approval of his request to be discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. 


9. 
On 18 June 1970, the separation authority approved his request and directed he be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate (i.e., under other than honorable conditions). He accumulated 206 days of lost time. 

10. 
On 30 June 1970, he was discharged with service characterized as under conditions other than honorable. He completed 9 months and 19 days of net active service. The applicant was not awarded a personal decoration. 

11. 
He submitted an application to the Army Discharge Review Board requesting his discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 3 June 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board notified him that his request had been denied. 

12. 
On 7 January 2019, an Army Review Boards Agency psychologist provided an advisory opinion. The psychologist concluded that, based on thorough review of available medical records, there is a lack of evidence that the applicant met the criteria for a board for medical or behavioral health condition during his military service. His misconduct appears to be best attributed to life/family stressors (AWOL of brother) and his lack of desire for military service. He demonstrated a disregard for rules by going AWOL on numerous occasions.  The psychologist concluded that there is no evidence 


that a behavioral health condition mitigated the applicant’s misconduct and 
recommended no change to the characterization of his service. 
13. 
The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for review and comment. He did not respond. 

14. 
Army Regulation 15–185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the 


3 
Army, acting through the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).  In pertinent part, it states that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The ABCMR will decide cases based on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative agency. 
15. 
Discharges under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. An Undesirable Discharge Certificate was normally furnished to Soldiers discharged under this authority at the time. 

16. 
This Board is to give liberal consideration to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on mental health conditions. 


The veteran’s testimony alone, oral or written, may establish the existence of a 
condition or experience, that the condition or experience existed during or was aggravated by military service, and that the condition or experience excuses or mitigates the discharge. 
17. The ABCMR is not authorized to grant requests for upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for veterans' benefits; however, in reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, supporting documents, service record, and statements in light of the published guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency. 
BOARD DISCUSSION: 
After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, the evidence found within the military record and published DoD guidance for liberal consideration and clemency consideration of discharge upgrade requests, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board considered the applicant's statement, his record of service, the frequency and nature of his misconduct and the reason for his separation. The Board considered the review and conclusions of the medical advising official. The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors. The applicant did not provide evidence of post-service achievements or reference letters sufficient to support a clemency determination. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board found that the applicant's character of service was not in error or unjust. 
4 
BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :XXX :XXX :XXX 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. 
X 
CHAIRPERSON 
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): 
Not Applicable 
REFERENCES: 
1. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 
a. Paragraph 1-9d (Honorable discharge) states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  Issuance of an honorable discharge will be conditioned upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member’s current enlistment of current period of service with due consideration for the member’s age, length of service, grade, and general aptitude. Where there have been infractions of discipline, the extent thereof should be considered, as well as the seriousness of the offense(s). 
b. Paragraph 1-9e (General discharge) states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions of an individual whose military record is not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. When a member’s service is characterized as general, except when discharged because of misconduct, unfitness, unsuitability, homosexuality, or security, the specific basis for such separation will be included in the individual’s military personnel record. 
c. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for the good of the service. The request for discharge may be submitted at any time after court-martial charges are preferred against him, regardless of whether the charges are referred to a court-martial and regardless of the type of court-martial to which the charges may be referred.  Consideration should be given to the member’s potential for rehabilitation and his entire record should be reviewed prior to taking action.  An Undesirable Discharge Certificate will normally be furnished. 
2. 
On 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider revised post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service. 

3. 
 On 25 August 2017 the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBs and BCM/NRs when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to: mental health conditions, including PTSD; traumatic brain injury; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Boards are to give liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on those conditions or experiences. The guidance further describes evidence sources and criteria and requires Boards to consider the conditions or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for misconduct that led to the discharge. 

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. 


a. 
 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. 

b. 
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. 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//