IN THE CASE OF:  

BOARD DATE:  3 December 2021

DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20210013323


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

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of 
the United States), dated 16 April 2021

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 did not provide a statement in support of his request.

3.  Following prior service in the U.S. Marine Corps, the applicant enlisted in the 
Regular Army on 23 March 1989.  He served in Southwest Asia from 8 January 1991 to 
4 May 1991.

4.  The applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army on 23 December 1993 and again on 
27 January 1994.

5.  The applicant received a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) on 
6 May 1997, which stated:

	a.  After reviewing a report of investigation (ROI), dated 27 February 1997, 
concerning the enlistment of Mr. M___, the preponderance of the evidence 
demonstrates that the applicant interceded in the criminal process on behalf of Mr. 
M___ by drafting a letter for presentation in a court hearing, which was instrumental in 
gaining his release from probation.  The applicant exercised gross negligence in not 
ascertaining the purpose and disposition of Mr. M___s’ court hearing, as well as the 
status of his probation, prior to his shipment to basic training.  This negligence resulted 
in Mr. M___ being shipped to basic training within a 30-day period after release from 
probation in violation of Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve 
Enlistment Program).

	b.  The applicant was reprimanded for misconduct.  The GOMOR was 
administratively imposed and not as punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ).  The imposing official stated he intended to file GOMOR in the 
applicant’s official military personnel file (OMPF); however, prior to making his filing 
decision, he would consider any matters presented within 10 days of the date of the 
GOMOR.

	c.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR on 15 May 1997.

	d.  The applicant did not submit a rebuttal; on 13 June 1997, the reprimand was filed 
in his OMPF.

6.  The applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant on 20 June 1997 that 
he had initiated actions to separate him from service under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, 
by reason of misconduct – commission of a serious offense.  As the specific reasons, 
his commander cited:

	a.  Through a ROI, dated 26 August 1996, it was determined the applicant 
committed a recruiting impropriety, by giving an applicant a pre-signed form and by 
failing to get his signature on the form, in violation of recruiting regulation.

	b.  Through a joint Secret Service and Air Force Office of Special Investigations ROI, 
dated 19 March 1997, the applicant admitted to completing blank identification (ID) card 
forms with aliases, making them look legitimate and opening a checking account using 
the false ID card.  He also used the false ID to make purchases totaling $6173.85.

	c.  Through a ROI, dated 27 February 1997, it was determined the applicant 
intervened with the civilian court system on behalf of an applicant, in violation of 
recruiting regulation.

7.  The applicant consulted with counsel on 24 June 1997 and acknowledged receipt of 
the notification memorandum.  He waived his right to consideration of his case by a 
board of officers, and personal appearance before a board of officers.  He elected to 
submit statements in his own behalf; however, his statement is not available for review.

8.  The applicant's commander formally recommended the applicant's separation, under 
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c.  The separation authority 
approved the recommended discharge on 3 July 1997 and directed the issuance of a 
DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate).

9.  The applicant was discharged on 29 July 1997.  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 14-12c, by reason of misconduct.  
His service was characterized as under honorable conditions (general).

10.  The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade 
of his discharge.  The ADRB considered his request on 29 June 1998, determined he 
was properly and equitably discharged, and denied his petition for relief.

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

BOARD DISCUSSION:

The Board carefully considered the applicants 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 
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 
for the misconduct and the applicant provided no evidence of post-service 
achievements or letters of support to weigh a clemency determination.  Based on a 
preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the character of service the 
applicant received upon separation was not in error or unjust.

After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief 
was not warranted.

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:

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, 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 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//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20210013323

4
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1