ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  11 June 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20170011614


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions 
discharge to honorable.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	Two Letters of Reenlistment Recommendations
*	Letter of Appreciation
*	Letter of Commendation
*	Certificate of Achievement
*	Army Achievement Medal Certificate

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 that he served with honor and distinction for over 3 years until 
he was assigned a new platoon sergeant that developed an attitude of hostility towards 
him the first time they met.  He missed one formation and the next day he was standing 
before him and the commander being charged with disobeying an order.  He was 
reduced in rank and fined.  At the time, he was married, had a child, and had an eviction 
notice in his pocket for back rent.  He lost his temper, cursed at everyone in the room, 
and that was that.  A month later, he was in Oakland out-processing for being “unable to 
adapt to military life” 3 months after being recommended to appear before the sergeant 
selection board. 

3.  The applicant provides:

	a.  Two reenlistment recommendations which state that the applicant is an asset to 
the Army and merits selection for reenlistment.

	b.  A letter of appreciation from his platoon leader for his outstanding performance of 
duty during a division level exercise. 

	c.  A letter of commendation from his commander for being selected as Soldier of 
the Month.

	d.  A certificate of achievement from the battalion commander for his performance 
during an exercise. 

	e.  The Army Achievement Medal Certificate for his performance while assigned as a 
multichannel team chief. 

4.  A review of the applicant’s service records shows:

	a.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 October 1981.

	b.  He served in Hawaii from 25 January 1984 to 2 April 1985.

   c.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment on 12 February 1985 for dereliction of his 
duties, disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer, failure to go at the 
time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, and going from his appointed place of 
duty without authority.

	d.  On 14 March 1985, the applicant’s immediate commander notified the applicant 
of his intent to separate him under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation (AR) 
635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) for unsatisfactory performance 
as a result of his total disregard toward military regulations and superiors.  

	e  On 15 March 1985, he was advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated 
action to accomplish his separation for unsatisfactory performance, its effects, of the 
rights available to him, and the effect of any action taken by him in waiving his rights.  
He elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.  He acknowledged:

*	he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general 
discharge under honorable conditions was issued to him
*	he may apply to the Army Discharge Review Board or the ABCMR for 
upgrading if a discharge certificate was less than honorable
*	he would be ineligible to apply for enlistment in the Army for a period of  
2 years after discharge

	f.  Consistent with the chain of command recommendation, the separation approval 
authority approved the applicant’s discharge for unsatisfactory performance.  He would 
be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

	g.  The applicant was discharged on 4 April 1985 under the provisions of chapter 13, 
AR 635-200 with an under honorable conditions characterization of service.  His  
DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he 
completed 3 years, 5 months, and 14 days of active service with lost time from  
7 January 1982 to 26 January 1982.  It also shows he was awarded or authorized:

*	Good Conduct Medal
*	Army Service Ribbon
*	Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar
*	Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16)

5.  By regulation, a Soldier may be separated when it is determined that he or she is 
unqualified for further military service because of unsatisfactory performance.  The 
service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance will be 
characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by their military 
record.

6.  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 reviewing the application and all supporting documents, to include the DoD 
guidance on liberal consideration when reviewing discharge upgrade requests, the 
Board determined that relief was not warranted.  One potential outcome discussed was 
to grant an upgrade to honorable discharge since there is no UCMJ and the command 
separated him for his performance; However, based upon the totality of the facts and 
circumstances, the Board determined to deny relief as the applicant failed to provide 
current letters of support or evidence of post-service achievements.

BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	X	:	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

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, provided for separation of enlisted personnel.  

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a (Honorable Discharge) states that an honorable discharge is a 
separation with honor:  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.

	b.  Chapter 13 of that regulation states a Soldier may be separated when it is 
determined that he or she is unqualified for further military service because of 
unsatisfactory performance.  The service of Soldiers separated because of 
unsatisfactory performance will be characterized as honorable or under honorable 
conditions as warranted by their military record.

3.  On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 
issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Corrections of 
Military/Naval Records regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations.  
Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence and 
BCMRs 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 discharge, which may be 
warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds, BCMRs shall consider the twelve 
stated principles in the guidance as well as eighteen individual factors related to an 
applicant.  These factors include the severity of the misconduct and the length of time 
since the misconduct.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20170011614

5

1