ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


SAMR-RB                                                                                21 October 2019


MEMORANDUM FOR Case Management Division, US Army Review Boards 
Agency, 251 18th Street South, Suite 385, Arlington, VA 22202-3531

SUBJECT: Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of 
Proceedings for , AR20170004561


1.	Reference the attached Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of 
Proceedings, dated 25 June 2019, in which the Board members recommended denial 
of the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade.

2.	I have reviewed the findings, conclusions, and Board member recommendations. 
I find there is sufficient evidence to grant additional relief. Therefore, in addition to 
the portion of the applicant’s request granted by the Board, under the authority of 
Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, I direct that all Department of the Army 
Records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the applicant a DD 
Form 214 showing his characterization of service as Under Honorable Conditions 
(General).

3.	Request necessary administrative action be taken to effect the correction of 
records as indicated no later than 23 January 2020. Further, request that the 
individual concerned and counsel, if any, as well as any Members of Congress who 
have shown interest be advised of the correction and that the Army Board for 
Correction of Military Records be furnished a copy of the correspondence.

BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY:



Encl    






	

	BOARD DATE:  26 June 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20170004561


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  upgrade of his under other than honorable condition 
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)

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United 
States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of 
Military Records 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 on 9 February 1984, his 17th birthday, he was aboard an 
airplane with a destination of Fort McClellan, AL.  He had just lost of mother to breast 
cancer and his father was absent two years after enlisting in the military.  He received 
news of his sister being diagnosed with breast cancer.  The U.S. Army had notified him 
of a pending assignment to Korea for the third year of his active duty enlistment.  As a 
result of life’s events, he was not prepared to deal with the situation so, he decided to 
go home to visit with his sister instead of honoring his assignment instructions.  He 
signed up for the Army at age 16 but couldn’t begin serving until he was 17.  Because 
he lost his mother and his sister became ill, he made a bad decision at age 19.  He was 
not equipped to handle the confusion.  He did spend two years on active duty without 
any nonjudicial punishment or disciplinary problems.

3.  The applicant service records shows:

	a.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 March 1984.  After training, he was 
assigned to Fort Carson, CO.

	b.  On 8 February 1986, he departed Fort Carson on permanent change of station 
(PCS) leave enroute to Korea.  On 8 March 1986, he failed to arrive his new duty station 
of Korea.

	c.  On 9 March 1986, the applicant was reported as absent without leave (AWOL) 
and coded as Assigned Not Joined (ASNJ) to his gaining organization 

	d.  On 8 April 1986, the applicant was dropped from the rolls (DFR) of his gaining 
organization.  On 17 May 1986, he surrendered and was returned to military control.

	e.  On 19 May 1986, he was transferred to the Processing Company, U.S. Army 
Personnel Control Facility at Fort Ord, CA.  

	f.  His DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) states court-martial charges were preferred for 
one specification of AWOL from 9 March 1986 to 17 May 1986.

	g.  On 3 June 1986, he consulted with legal counsel and subsequently requested 
discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel 
Separations - Enlisted Personnel Separations), chapter 10.  In his request, he 
acknowledged:

*	maximum punishment
*	he was guilty of the charge against him or of a lesser included offense
*	he understood if his discharge was accepted she could be separated with an 
under other than honorable conditions discharge and furnished an Other 
Than Honorable Discharge Certificate
*	he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits and that he may be 
ineligible for benefits by the Veterans Administration and benefits of a Veteran 
under Federal and State law
*	he was advised he could submit any statements he desired in her own behalf
*	his election shows he elected not to submit a statement

	f.  On 18 December 1986, consistent with the chain of command recommendations, 
the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge under the 
provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-
martial.  The separation authority directed issuance of an Under Other Than Honorable 
Discharge Certificate and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.

	g.  On 19 February 1987, the applicant was discharged from active duty under the 
provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10 as a private (PVT/E-1).  His DD Form 214 
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he completed 2 years, 8 
months, and 27 days of active service with 78 days of lost time.  It also shows he was 
awarded or authorized the Army Service Ribbon and the Sharpshooter Marksmanship 
Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16).

4.  By regulation, a member who committed an offense or offenses the punishment for 
which includes a bad conduct discharge or dishonorable discharge may submit a 
request for discharge for the good of the service.  An Under Other Than Honorable 
Discharge Certificate normally is appropriate for a member who is discharged for the 
good of the service.

5.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition and his 
service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency 
determination guidance.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined relief is not 
warranted.  The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered.  The Board applied 
Department of Defense standards of liberal consideration to the complete evidentiary 
record and did not find any evidence of error, injustice, or inequity.  Based upon the 
lengthy of his AWOL offense and a lack of character evidence to show that he has 
learned and grown from the events leading to his separation, the Board agreed that the 
applicant's discharge characterization was warranted as a result of the misconduct.

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.


	  
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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records 
(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 (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) in 
effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a (Honorable Discharge) states an honorable discharge is a 
separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality 
of the member’s service general 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.  Paragraph 3-7b (General Discharge) states that 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.

	c.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has 
committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a 
punitive discharge may, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in 
lieu of trial by court martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges 
have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  Although an 
honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable 
conditions is normally considered appropriate.

3.  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.  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.  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 based on 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//

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20170004561

2

1