ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	BOARD DATE:  23 October 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20170007902


APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade to her under other than honorable conditions 
discharge

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, 
United States Code (USC), section1552(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:

     a. She requests that her under other than honorable conditions discharge be 
upgraded to an honorable discharge.  She served honorably and excelled 
throughout her training.  She became involved with a Solider who began physically 
and verbally abusing her shortly after their relationship began.  She frequently went 
to work with bruises on her face, arms and legs.  With no support system in place, 
she felt she was rendered helpless and full of shame; she did not want anyone to 
know she was being abused.  

   b.  When her boyfriend was discharged, he moved her from her duty station and 
she was absent without leave (AWOL).  They lived with his mother and she was held 
captive by him with no access to a car or phone.  She continued to endure abuse 
including a broken nose.  She eventually reached a point where she just wanted to 
die and fled from the house.  She flagged down a police officer and informed him 
she was AWOL from the Army and needed help.  She believes her Other than 
Honorable discharge was unjust, as she was suffering from physical abuse 
syndrome, which her company was aware of and nothing was done to provide her 
with the support she needed.  It has taken years of counseling and education for her 
to understand the complexity of physical abuse and that being a victim is not her 
fault.  She feels the injustice of her abuse was exacerbated having an under other 
than honorable conditions discharge. 

3.  A review of the applicant’s service record shows:

	a.  She enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 June 1980.

	b.  On 24 April 1981, she accepted non-judicial punishment, under the provisions 
of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for departing her unit in an AWOL 
status on 25 March 1981 and did not return to military control until 26 March 1981. 

	c.  According to her DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) court-martial charges were 
preferred against her for three specifications of AWOL from 23 May 1981 to 30 may 
1981, 31 May 1981 to 14 June 1981 and 18 June 1981 to 14 August 1981.

	d.  She departed her unit in an AWOL status on 1 September 1981, returned to 
military control on 13 September 1981, departed again on 21 September 1981 and 
returned to military control on 24 October 1981 after being dropped from the rolls.

	e.  Her record is completely void of her separation packet, which would have 
contained her request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 
635-200, (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 10, for the good of 
the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, her commanders recommendations and 
the separation authority’s approval.  However, it does contain her DD Form 214, 
which shows she was discharged on 7 December 1981, under the provisions of 
Chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

	f.  Her DD Form 214 also shows she completed 1 year, 1 month and 8 days of 
net active service this period with lost time from 23 May 1981 to 13 August 1981, 
1 September 1981 to 12 September 1981 and 21 September 1981 to 23 October 
1981.
 
4.  There is no evidence the applicant has applied to the Army Discharge Review 
Board for review of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

5.  By regulation a member who has committed an offense or offenses, the 
punishment for any of which, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the 
Manual for Courts-Martial, United States 1969 (Revised Edition), includes a bad 
conduct or dishonorable discharge, may submit a request for discharge for the good 
of the Service. 

6.  The Board should 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.  She 
did not provide character witness statements or evidence of post-service 
achievements for the Board to consider.  Based upon the short term of honorable 
service completed prior to a lengthy period of AWOL, 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 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 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), in effect 
at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  

	a.  Paragraph 1-13a (Honorable) provides that an honorable discharge is a 
separation with honor.  Issuance of an honorable discharge certificate is predicated 
upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the 
member’s current enlistment or period of obligated service with due consideration for 
the member’s age, length of service, grade, and general aptitude.

	b.  Paragraph 1-13b (General) provides that a general discharge is a separation 
from the Army under honorable conditions.  It is issued to a member whose military 
record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable 
discharge.  The recipient of a general discharge is normally a member whose 
military record and performance is satisfactory. The member may have had frequent 
non-judicial punishments but not for serious infractions.

	c.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who 
has committed an offense or offenses, the punishment for any of which, under the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 
1969 (Revised Edition), includes a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, may 
submit a request for discharge for the good of the service.  The provisions of the 
Table of Maximum Punishments, Section B, paragraph 127c MCM 1969 (Rev) are 
not applicable to requests for discharge pursuant to this chapter.  The request for 
discharge may be submitted at any time after court-martial charges are preferred 
against the member, 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.  The request for discharge may be submitted at any stage in the processing 
of the charges until final action on the case by the court-martial convening authority.

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)	 AR20170007902

5

1