ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	BOARD DATE:  11 April 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20170018174


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than 
honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general under honorable conditions 
discharge.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the United States) in 
lieu of 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 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 is requesting an upgrade because at the time of service he 
was young and had no knowledge of what he was facing when he joined the Army.  He 
needs an upgrade so that he may be part of veterans groups and a mentor for those 
who have made mistakes during their military service as he did.

3.  On 31 July 1980, at the age of 19 years, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  
On 15 January 1981, after completing advanced individual training, the applicant arrived 
at his permanent duty station and went absent without leave (AWOL) 19 days after 
arrival.

4.  A review of his service record shows he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on:

*	2 March 1981 for being AWOL from 2 February 1981 to 6 February 1981, AWOL 
for a total of 4 days
*	28 May 1981 for wrongfully altering a DD Form 698 (Individual Sick Slip) as 
follows: quarters till 1700 hours 20 May 1981

5.  On 7 July 1981, he went AWOL and he was subsequently dropped from the rolls.  
On 3 November 1981, he was apprehended by civil authorities and returned to military 
control; AWOL for a total of 3 months and 27 days (119 days).

6.  On 10 November 1981, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant 
for one specification of being AWOL from on or about 7 July 1981 and remaining absent 
until on or about 3 November 1981.  

7.  On 12 November 1981, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of 
the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 
635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.  He consulted with 
legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the trial by court-martial, his available 
rights and the basis for voluntarily requesting discharge under the provision of AR 635-
200, chapter 10.  
   
   a.  The immediate commander’s recommendation stated: 

      (1)  He personally interviewed the applicant and the applicant stated that he was 
aware of the nature of the interview and the consequences of a discharge under other 
than honorable conditions.  The applicant desired elimination from the Service under the 
provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, under less than honorable conditions.  The 
applicant stated that his approximate 118 days of AWOL were caused by family 
problems and by his dislike for the Army.  He stated that he just could not adjust to 
Army requirements and, in addition, his wife was having problems at home with their 
children and needed his assistance. 
      
      (2)  The applicant stated he received three Article 15's for being late arriving to 
his unit and for forgery of sick slips, resulting in his reduction to E-1, fine of $125.00, 
and seven days in confinement and correctional facility (CCF).  Because of the 
problems he was experiencing within his unit and his concern for his wife and children, 
he departed AWOL.  On 1 November 1981, while making a statement as a witness to a 
robbery, he was discovered to be AWOL from the Army by Hartwell, GA authorities.  On 
10 November 1981, he was released to military authorities and arrived at the CCF.  He 
stated that his only desire at that time was to receive a discharge and continue to care 
for his family.  

   b.  The applicant's chain of command recommended approval of his request and the 
appropriate separation authority approved the applicant's request directing the applicant 
be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and he be issued a discharge under other than 
honorable conditions.  

8.  On 4 February 1982, he was discharged accordingly, his service was characterized 
as UOTHC.  He completed 1 year, 2 months, and 5 days of net active service this 
period.  His DD Form 214 shows:

*	He was awarded or authorized the M-16 Marksman Marksmanship Qualification 
Badge and Army Service Ribbon
*	Excess leave: 85 days-12 November 1981 to 4 February 1982
*	Dates and Time Lost During This Period:  2 February 1981 to 5 February 1981 
and 7 July 1981 to 2 November 1981, AWOL for a total of 4 months (123 days)

11.  The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to upgrade his 
discharge to an honorable discharge.  On 5 December 1984, the ADRB denied his 
petition, citing he was properly and equitably discharged.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 states a Chapter 10 is a voluntary discharge request in-
lieu of trial by court martial.  A member may be awarded an honorable or general 
discharge, if during the current enlistment period of obligated service he has been 
awarded a personal decoration or if warranted by the particular circumstances of a 
specific case.

13.  The applicant states he was young and had no knowledge of what he was facing 
when he joined the Army.  He needs an upgrade so that he may be part of veterans 
groups and a mentor for those who have made mistakes during their military service as 
he did.  His record shows he enlisted at the age of 19 years old, he accepted two NJPs, 
and went AWOL on two occasions resulting in 123 days of lost time.  

14.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition and 
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 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.  He did not provide character witness statements or post-service 
achievements for the Board to consider.  Based upon the record, 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.


ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S):

Not Applicable

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 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), in effect at 
the time, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted 
personnel, it states:

	a.  A Chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service) is applicable to members 
who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment 
included a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge could submit a request for discharge 
for the good of the service.  The request could be submitted at any time after the 
charges had been preferred.  Although an honorable or general discharge was 
authorized, an under other than honorable conditions discharge was normally 
considered appropriate.  

	b.  An honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to 
benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization 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.

	c.  A general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  
When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but 
not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

	d.  When a member is to be issued a discharge under other than honorable 
conditions, the convening authority will direct his immediate reduction to the lowest 
enlisted grade.

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 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. The 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 on the basis of 
equity, an injustice, or clemency grounds, BCMRs shall consider the twelve stated 
principles in the guidance as well as eighteen individual factors related to the applicant.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20170018174

4

1