ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


IN THE CASE OF: 
BOARD DATE: 26 May 2021 
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210008075

APPLICANT REQUESTS: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be 
upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions 
of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552), dated 13 November 2020

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 he is trying to get a certificate of eligibility to buy a house and he 
would also like to get a cheaper insurance rate.

3.	The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 November 1974.

4.	The applicant accepted non-judicial punishment, under the provisions of Article 15 of 
the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on the following dates:

*	on 13 December 1974, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed 
place of duty, on or about 5 December 1974
*	on 18 January 1977, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place 
of duty, on or about 9 January 1977 and 10 January 1977
*	on 8 March 1977, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of 
duty, on or about 21 February 1977 and 23 February 1977
*	on 8 June 1977, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of 
duty, on or about 6 June 1977
*	on 15 November 1977, for being absent without leave (AWOL), from on or about 
3 October 1977 to on or about 14 October 1977




*	on 7 March 1978, for being AWOL, from on or about 9 January 1977 to on or 
about 27 January 1977

5.	The applicant's commander notified the applicant on 22 March 1978 that he had 
initiated actions to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 
(Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 13, by reason of misconduct.

6.	A DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 28 March 1978, 
shows the applicant was mentally capable to participate in board proceedings.

7.	The applicant consulted with counsel on 17 April 1978 and was advised of the basis 
for the contemplated action to separate him and of the rights available to him. He 
requested a personal appearance and consideration of his case by an administrative 
separation board. He elected not to provide a statement in his own behalf.

8.	The applicant's immediate commander formally recommended the applicant's 
separation from service on 20 April 1978, under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, Chapter 13, by reason of misconduct. The separation authority directed the 
case be referred to a board of officers.

9.	The applicant appeared before an administrative separation board on 13 June 1978. 
The board unanimously recommended his elimination from service for misconduct, with 
the issuance of a UOTHC discharge.

10.	The separation authority approved the recommended separation action on 20 June 
1978, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b (1), and 
directed the applicant’s reduction to the lowest enlisted grade and the issuance of a
DD Form 794A (UOTHC Discharge Certificate).

11.	The applicant was discharged on 29 November 1978. His DD Form 214 
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) confirms he was discharged 
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b (1), by reason of 
misconduct - frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. 
His DD Form 214 shows in:

*	Item 4b (Pay Grade), his grade as E-2
*	Item 12c (Net Active Service This Period), he was credited with serving three 
years, four months, and 17 days
*	Item 18 (Remarks), the entry "DISCHARGE UPGRADED ON 800327 
FOLLOWING APPLICATION OF 781101"
*	Item 24 (Character of Service), his service was characterized as under honorable 
conditions




12.	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, evidence in the records, and 
published Department of Defense guidance for consideration of discharge upgrade 
requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, his record of service, the 
frequency and nature of his misconduct, the reason for his separation, and whether to 
apply clemency. The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors 
and the applicant provided no evidence of post-service achievements or letters of 
reference in support of a clemency determination to further upgrade his character of 
service. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined the character 
of service the applicant received following an upgrade on 27 March 1980 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.

6/22/2021

 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.


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 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.	Chapter 14 of this regulation established policy and prescribed procedures for 
separating members for misconduct. Specific categories included minor disciplinary 
infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil 
authorities, desertion, or absences without leave. Action would be taken to separate a 
member for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was 
impracticable or was unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable 
conditions was normally considered appropriate. However, the separation authority 
could direct a general discharge if such was merited by the Soldier's overall record.
   



3.	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//