ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  22 May 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20170019615


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

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

*	DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of 
the United States)
*	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
*	Letter (Statement of Employment), Airbus Helicopters
*	Memorandum for Record (Character Reference) from (SFC X.X.X.)

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 an upgrade of his discharge would provide more opportunities 
of advancement in his chosen career field of aviation.  He has worked in aviation for    
20 years and his advancement is limited to openings in Europe.  He states he would like 
to use the GI Bill that he paid into to further his education and receive his FAA (Federal 
Aviation Administration) license.  He has remained free of trouble since discharge, held 
a “secret” security clearance, and worked at Ramstein Airbase on the Polygon 
Electronic Warfare Range.  The applicant believes sufficient time has elapsed; he 
requests full receipt of benefits earned for the time he served his country.

3.  The applicant provides:

	a.  A work letter reference from Sergeant First Class(SFC) XXX, which states he has 
known the applicant for 13 years during their time on active duty at Hunter Army Airfield, 
Savannah, GA.  SFC XXX states the applicant is an outstanding individual who 
demonstrates unfailing diligence, job aggressiveness, and total dedication to 
excellence.
	b.  A statement of employment from airbus helicopters, dated 20 January 2017.

4.  The applicant’s service records shows:

	a.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 September 1990.

	b.  He served in Germany from 25 April 1991 to 20 January 1992.

	c.  On 12 November 1992, he received a General Officer Memorandum of 
Reprimand for drunk driving, open container and no driver’s license on person.  He was 
apprehended by military police on 8 November 1992 for the listed infractions at Hunter 
Army Airfield, GA.  He acknowledged an elected not to make a statement on his behalf.

	d.  On 10 January 1994, the applicant was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal 
(AGCM) (1st Award) for exemplary service during the period of 11 September 1990 to 
10 September 1993.  On 25 January 1994, the AGCM for the above period was 
revoked.

	e.  The complete facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are 
unavailable for board review.  However, his service record contains a DD Form 214 that 
shows the applicant was discharged from active duty on 24 April 1995, in accordance 
with chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) with an under 
honorable conditions (general) characterization of service.  His DD Form 214 further 
shows: 

*	he completed 4 years, 7 months, and 14days of active service
*	he was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service Medal, Army 
Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, and Marksman Marksmanship 
Qualification Badge with Rifle and Grenade Bars 

5.  By regulation, AR 635-200, Soldiers are subject to separation under the provisions of 
chapter 13, when he or she is unqualified for further military service because of 
unsatisfactory performance.  An honorable or under honorable conditions (general) 
discharge was an appropriate and authorized characterization of service.

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 review of the application and all evidence, to include the DoD guidance on liberal 
consideration when reviewing discharge upgrade requests, the Board determined there 
is insufficient evidence to grant relief.  Based upon the documentary evidence provided 
by the applicant and found within his military service record, the Board agreed that there 
was insufficient evidence to show that there was an error or injustice which would 
warrant changing the characterization of service.  For that reason, the Board 
recommended denying the applicant’s request for relief.

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:

1. 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.
2.  Prior to closing the case, the Board noted the administrative note below by the 
analyst of record and recommended that change be made to more accurately depict the 
military service of the applicant.
	  
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):

A review of the applicant’s records shows he is authorized an award not listed on his 
DD Form 214:  Permanent Orders Number 044-011, issued by Headquarters, U.S. 
Army Signal Center, Fort Gordon, GA on 13 February 1991 awarded him the Aircraft 
Crewman Badge.



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, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted 
personnel.

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a (Honorable Discharge) provides that an honorable discharge is 
given when the quality of the Soldier's service has generally met standards of 
acceptable conduct and duty performance.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7b (General Discharge) provides that 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.

	c.  Paragraph 13-2, of the version in effect at the time, established policy and 
prescribed procedures for separating members for unsatisfactory participation.  
Commanders will separate a Soldier for unsatisfactory performance when it is clearly 
established that:

*	In their judgement, the Soldier will not develop sufficiently to participate 
satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier
*	The seriousness of the circumstances is such that the Soldier's retention 
would have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order, and morale
*	It is likely that the Soldier will be a disruptive influence in present or future 
duty assignments
*	It is likely that the circumstances forming the basis for initiation of separation 
proceedings will continue or recur
*	The ability of the Soldier to perform duties effectively in the future, including 
potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely 

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 from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also 
applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be 
warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds.  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 on the basis of equity, 
injustice, or clemency grounds, Boards shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, 
external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, 
mental and behavioral health conditions, official government acknowledgement that a 
relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment.  Changes to the 
narrative reason for the 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 has the upgraded service characterization.


ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20170019615

4

1