ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


IN THE CASE OF: 
BOARD DATE: 18 May 2021 
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20200002143

APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of the previous Army Board for Correction 
of Military Records (ABCMR) decision promulgated in Docket Number AR20180015761 
on 16 April 2019. Specifically, he requests his under other than honorable conditions 
(UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

*	DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the 
Armed Forces of the United States), dated 16 October 2019

FACTS:

1.	Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in the 
previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number 
AR20180015761 on 16 April 2019.

2.	The applicant states that he is need of more benefits.

3.	The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 June 1977. He remained on active 
duty through a series of reenlistments and extensions.

4.	A Military Police Blotter, dated 26 March 1991, shows an investigation revealed that 
the applicant's two sons indecently assaulted an individual on 19 March 1991.

5.	A memorandum from the Commander, U.S. Military Community Activity Bamberg, 
Federal Republic of Germany, dated 4 April 1991, Subject: Notification of Intended 
Administrative Action, shows that one of the applicant's sons was listed as the subject of 
military reports on 13 March and 19 March 1991, for assault consummated with a 
battery and indecent assault, respectively. The applicant was told that since family 
member misconduct may adversely affect U.S./German relations and distract from the 
quality of life of others in the community, the commander had the responsibility to 
investigate incidents and take necessary action in misconduct cases involving civilians 
residing in the community.




6.	A memorandum from the Commander, U.S. Military Community Activity Bamberg, 
Federal Republic of Germany, dated 4 April 1991, Subject: CMAA Adverse 
Administrative Action, shows that, based on the evidence presented, it was decided that 
the applicant's son did commit the misconduct and therefore, he would participate in the 
Community Supervision Program for a total of 30 hours.

7.	A memorandum to the Commander, U.S. Military Community Activity Bamberg, 
dated 9 May 1991, shows a Family Advocacy/Social Works Service at the U.S. Army 
Health Clinic, Bamberg, requested an early return of the applicant's sons to the 
Continental U.S. (CONUS) to prevent future possible embarrassment to the community.

8.	The applicant's commander notified the applicant on 4 June 1991 that due to the 
repeated incidents of misconduct involving his two sons, he (the commander) intended 
to recommend the applicant's early return to the U.S.

9.	The applicant's record is void of a separation packet containing the facts and 
circumstances surrounding his discharge. However, his DD Form 214 (Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged on 3 August 1992, 
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted 
Personnel), Chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. He 
was credited with 15 years, one month, and 19 days of net active service, and his 
service was characterized as UOTHC.

10.	The issuance of a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, 
Chapter 10, required the applicant to have requested from the Army – voluntarily, 
willingly, and in writing – discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. It is presumed that all 
requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully 
protected throughout the separation process. The applicant has provided no evidence 
that would indicate the contrary.

11.	The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade 
of his discharge. The ADRB determined he was properly and equitably discharged and 
denied his request on 18 January 2001.

12.	The ABCMR denied the applicant's petition for an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge 
on 16 April 2019. However, the Board directed an administrative correction to the 
applicant's DD Form 214 to show his period of continuous honorable active service in 
Item 18 (Remarks). A DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release 
or Discharge from Active Duty) was issued on 13 May 2021, which corrected Item 18 of 
the applicant's DD Form 214 to show he had continuous honorable active service from 
15 June 1977 through 22 October 1989.




13.	The Board should consider the applicant's statement in accordance with the 
published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, 
evidence in the records and published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of 
discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, record of 
service, the absence of a separation packet describing the frequency and nature of the 
misconduct, the applicant’s request for discharge and the reason for separation. Based 
on the documentation available for review, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of 
trial by court-martial in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. The 
applicant provided no evidence of mitigating circumstances at the time of service and 
provided no evidence of post-service achievements or letters of reference to weigh in 
support of a clemency determination. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the 
Board determined that the applicant’s character of service was not in error or unjust and 
therefore the Board found relief was not warranted.

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.


5/9/2022

 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):

N/A 
REFERENCES:
1.	Army Regulation 635-200 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 Soldiers whose military record is satisfactory but not 
sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

   c.	Chapter 10, in effect at the time, provided that a member who committed an 
offense or offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for which the 
authorized punishment included a punitive discharge, could submit a request for 
discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were 
preferred. Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting 
a request for discharge for the good of the service. Consulting counsel would advise
   



the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses, the type of discharge 
normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of Department of Veterans 
Affairs (VA) benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the 
characterization of such a discharge. A UOTHC discharge was normally considered 
appropriate.

2.	The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to 
Service Discharge Review Boards and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval 
Records on 25 July 2018, regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. 
Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. Boards 
for Correction of Military/Naval Records 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//