ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	BOARD DATE:  6 September 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20170013887


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) 
discharge be upgraded to an honorable 

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:          
DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)

FACTS:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the 
previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of 
Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20120007296 on 11 October 2012.

2.  The applicant states:

     a.  Due to circumstances, he was unjustly given a urinalysis.  He hired a lawyer and 
fought the issue.  He won the case and was restored to his previous rank and status.  
He was offered a discharge under Chapter 10 and decided to follow this course of 
action.  

     b.  At the time, he did not know what a Chapter 10 was and had some personal 
issues (family and poor interactions with the first sergeant).  He had three previous 
honorable discharges from the Army.  He served thirteen years in the Army.  He served 
honorably and worked hard.  He wishes to correct this situation and remove this blemish 
from his record.

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

     a.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 November 1978 and continued his service 
through a series of re-enlistments and an extension.

     b.  His record is void of the facts and circumstances regarding his separation, as well 
as the supporting documents.            


     c.  However, he was discharged on 15 October 1990, in accordance with Army 
Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations—Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the 
time.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows in:

*	item 12c (Net Active Service this Period), 11 years, 10 months, 25 days
*	item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges), Army Service Ribbon, Overseas 
Service Ribbon, Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon 
“2”, Driver Badge, Mechanic Badge, Army Good Conduct Medal (3rd Award), 
Expert (M-16 Rifle)
*	item 18 (Remarks), the notation “Continuous honorable active service from: 
781121-890626”
*	item 24 (Character of Service), under other than honorable conditions
*	item 25 (Separation Authority), AR 635-230 (sic), chap 10
*	item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation), for the good of the service—in lieu 
of court-martial   

4.  By regulation (AR 635-200), an individual facing court-martial for offenses for which 
the punishment included a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge could submit a 
request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after charges were 
preferred.

5.  By regulation (AR 15-185), the Board begins its consideration of each case with the 
presumption of administrative regularity.    

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 there is 
insufficient evidence to grant relief.  The Board applied Office of the Secretary of 
Defense standards of liberal consideration and clemency to the complete evidentiary 
record, including the applicant’s statement, and did not find any evidence of error, 
injustice, or inequity.  The Board noted the absence of the complete administrative 
record of the applicant's discharge, in particular the absence of a document specifying 
the court-martial charges against him.  In the absence of this information, the Board 
could not determine if the evidence of post-service honorable conduct he provided in 
support of a previous applicant might have mitigated the discharge characterization.  In 
light of all available evidence, the Board agreed that the applicant’s discharge 
characterization is appropriate.


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.  Army Regulation (AR) 15-185 (Boards, Commissions, and Committees—Army Board 
for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)), currently in effect, provides Department of 
the Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions regarding an applicant’s request 
for correct of a military record.  Paragraph 2-9 states the ABCMR beings its 
consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The 
applicant has the burden of providing an error or injustice by a preponderance of the 
evidence.  

2.  AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations—Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, set 
forth the policy for administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 provided 
that an individual facing court-martial for offenses the punishment for which included a 
bad conduct or dishonorable discharge could submit a request for discharge for the 
good of the service at any time after charges were preferred.  Commanders were 
directed to ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request and were 
given at least seventy-two hours to consider the wisdom of such a request for 
discharge.  Consulting counsel were required to advise the member concerning the 
elements of the offenses charged, burden of proof, possible defenses, possible 
punishments, the provisions of Chapter 10, the requirement of voluntariness, the type of 
discharge normally given under Chapter 10, rights regarding the withdrawal of the 
request, the loss of Veterans Administration benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in 
civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge.  The regulation also 
prescribed that an individual separated under Chapter 10 would normally receive a 
discharge under other than honorable conditions unless the separation authority 
directed issuance of a general discharge certificate based on the Soldier’s overall 
record during the current enlistment.  

3.  AR 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), currently in effect, 
sets forth the basic policy for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	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.  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.

4.  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.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20170013887

5

1