ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  21 November 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20170013901


APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade of his discharge from under honorable 
conditions (general) to honorable.

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

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 (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 he believes the record is in error to due to marital problems, 
mother’s diagnosis with cancer, and financial problems.  He further states that he 
has not had any problems and has worked for one company for 20 years.  

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

	a.  He enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 1 June 1982.  He reenlisted on 
11 April 1985, and 15 September 1988.

	b.  DA Form 4856 (General Counseling Form), dated 3 October 1990, shows that 
the applicant was counseled for non-payment of dishonored checks.  

	c.  DA Form 4856, dated 27 November 1990, shows that the applicant was 
counseled for dishonored checks, knowingly writing a check on a closed account, 
and conduct unbecoming of a noncommissioned officer (NCO).

	d.  DA Form 4856, dated 14 January 1991, shows that the applicant was 
counseled for separation for continued poor performance of writing bad checks and 
failing to meet other financial obligations.  Applicant was informed that he could be 
separated under Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted 
Personnel). 
chapter 13 (Separation for Unsatisfactory Performance) or chapter 14 (Separation 
for Misconduct).

	e.  DA Form 4856, dated 8 March 1991, shows that the applicant was counseled 
for being relieved for cause from his position as section leader due to his past 
performance and personal matters.

	f.  On 8 April 1991, the immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent 
to separate him under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14-12(b) (pattern of 
misconduct) for bad checks and indebtedness.  He recommended a general 
discharge.  He acknowledged receipt on 8 April 1991.

	g.  On 8 April 1991, he was advised by his consulting counsel of the basis for the 
contemplated action to separate him for pattern of misconduct under the provisions 
of AR 635-200, chapter 14-12(b), its effect, of the rights available to him, and the 
effect of any action taken by him in waiving his rights.  He acknowledged:

*	he had been afforded the opportunity to consult counsel
*	waive consideration of case by administrative board
*	statements submitted on his behalf
*	request representation by military counsel
*	that he was being considered for service characterization under honorable 
conditions (general)

	h.  The commander formally initiated separation under AR 635-200, chapter     
14-12(b) and the chain of command recommended approval on 8 April 1991.

	i.  On 10 April 1991, the separation authority approved the applicant’s separation 
under AR 635-200, chapter 14-12(b) with the issuance of an under honorable 
conditions discharge (general).

	j.  Orders 000058-151, dated 11 April 1991, discharges the applicant from active 
duty effective 16 April 1991.  He was discharged from active duty on 16 April 1991 
with an general, under honorable conditions discharge.  His DD form 214 (Certificate 
of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that he completed 8 years, 8 
months, and 6 days of active duty service. 

4.  By regulation, AR 635-200 establishes policy and prescribe procedures for 
separating personnel for misconduct because of minor disciplinary infractions, a 
pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil 
authorities, desertion, and absence without leave

5.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicants 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 found partial relief was warranted. Based upon the multiple repeated events 
of misconduct, as well as a lack of post-service character evidence to show that the 
applicant has learned and grown from the events leading to his military separation, 
the Board concluded the applicant received the appropriate character of service and 
found no reason to upgrade it any further. 

However, the Board did note that the applicant had a prior period of honorable 
service which is not currently reflected on his DD Form 214 and recommended that 
change be completed to more accurately reflect his military service.

   BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	GRANT FULL RELIEF

X	X	X	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:	:	:	DENY APPLICATION


?
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a 
recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all 
Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by adding 
the following additional statement to block 18 (Remarks) of his DD Form 214:  
“Continuous honorable active service from 1 June 1982 until 14 September 1988.”

2.  The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a 
portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so 
much of the application that pertains to upgrading the characterization of his 
discharge.
	  
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 Separations) in effect 
at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 
Chapter 14 of that regulation states members are subject to separation for a pattern 
of misconduct consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities 
or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.  Paragraph 3-7a states 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 for Army personnel, or is 
otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly 
inappropriate. Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the 
Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a member whose 
military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable 
discharge

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)	 AR20170013901
	
3

1