ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


SAMR-RB 28 October 2019

MEMORANDUM FOR Case Management Division, US Army Review Boards Agency, 
251 18th Street South, Suite 385, Arlington, VA 22202-3531

SUBJECT: Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings 
for, AR20180000539

1.	Reference the attached Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of 
Proceedings, dated 11 June 2019, in which the Board members recommended to 
gra relief the applicant’s request for a discharge upgrade.

2.	I have reviewed the findings, conclusions, and Board member recommendations. I 
find there is insufficient evidence to grant any relief. Based upon the minor misconduc 
found within the record which led to the applicant’s separation, as well as the lengthy 
period of honorable service completed, I direct that the applicant’s characterization of 
service be upgrade to Honorable.

BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY:

 


     							X____________

















		BOARD DATE:  11 June 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20180000539


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)
*	DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge)
*	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
*	Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of 
Claim)
*	Four Character Letters 

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 was sent to pick up ammunition and the paperwork was not 
correct.  A general officer was there for observation and he questioned why the ammo 
was late.  He was punished for this and sent to the range to clean up on a work detail.  
When he returned to his unit and the leadership asked him why he missed formation, he 
informed them he was told to report to the range for detail and that’s how all the 
confusion started and then was discharged.  He feels that his discharge should not 
negatively affect his life as a result of an error.

3.  The applicant provides character reference letters from members of his church to 
demonstrate that he is a hard worker and a very determined young man.  The friends of 
the church state he is a member of their church and is very dependable, responsible, 
honest, and has great integrity.  The applicant’s classmate has known him since 
elementary school and noted he is a helpful man and is loved by many.

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

a.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 September 1991.

b.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment on/for:

*	10 May 1999, for dereliction of duty and disrespecting a noncommissioned 
officer
*	19 October 2001 for failing to be at his appointed place of duty on three 
occasions and dereliction of duty

c.  On 14 November 2001, the applicant’s immediate commander notified the
applicant of his intent to separate him under the provisions of chapter 14-12b (Patterns 
of Misconduct) of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative 
Separations).

d.  On 14 November 2001, he acknowledged receipt of the notification of the
separation action, elected to consult with counsel, declined to submit statements on his 
own behalf, and elected to have his case heard by an administrative separation board.

	e.  On 29 November 2001, his immediate commander initiated action to separate 
him under the provisions of chapter 14-12b, AR 635-200.

f.  On 4 January 2002, consistent with the chain of command recommendations, the
separation authority approved the discharge recommendation for immediate separation 
under the provisions of chapter 14-12b, AR 635-200.  He would be issued a General 
Discharge Certificate.

g.  He was discharged from active duty on 4 February 2002 under the provisions of
chapter 14-12b, AR 635-200 with a general, under honorable conditions 
characterization of service.  His DD Form 214 shows he completed 10 years, 
4 months, and 25 days of active service.  It also shows he was awarded or authorized:

*	Army Lapel Button
*	Army Commendation Medal
*	Army Good Conduct Medal (2nd Award)
*	National Defense Service Medal
*	Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal
*	Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon
*	Army Service Ribbon
*	Overseas Service Ribbon
*	Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar
*	Parachutist Badge
*	Driver and Mechanic Badge with Driver W Bar
*	Basic Colombia Parachutist Badge
5.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board and on 8 December 
2017, the board denied his request for a discharge upgrade.

6.  By regulation, Soldiers are subject to separation for a pattern of misconduct.  A 
pattern of misconduct includes discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good 
order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal 
conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army regulations, the civil law, 
and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army.

7.  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 partial 
relief was warranted.  One outcome discussed was to upgrade the characterization to 
Under Honorable Conditions (General) based upon the applicant’s 10 years of service, 
level of misconduct, and letters of support.  However, the Board concluded that based 
upon the misconduct, the appropriate relief was to recognize the prior periods of 
honorable service by adding it to the remarks section of the applicant’s DD Form 214 
and that the characterization of service received at the time of the discharge was 
warranted.

BOARD VOTE:
Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:X	:	GRANT FULL RELIEF

: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 10 September 1991 until 6 February 2001.”
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.




						                  X_____________________


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 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), in effect 
at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  

a.  Paragraph 3-7a (Honorable Discharge) states an honorable discharge is a
separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality 
of the Soldier’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.  Chapter 14-12b of that regulation states Soldiers are subject to separation for a 
pattern of misconduct.  A pattern of misconduct includes discreditable conduct and 
conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted 
standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army 
regulations, the civil law, and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army.

3.  On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 
issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards of 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, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCMRs shall consider the twelve states 
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)	 AR20180000539

2

1