ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	BOARD DATE:  2 April 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20180001639


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  The applicant requests his under other than honorable 
conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable conditions.
 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	Applicant Statement
*	Statement from Alcohol Drug Abuse Prevention Control Program (ADAPCP)
*	Seven 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.  On 8 November 1978 the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army at the age of 19.

3.  The applicant states he was apprehended twice for driving under the influence of 
alcohol.  He was then declared a rehabilitative failure in accordance with Army 
Regulation (AR) 600-85 and AR 635-200, Chapter 9.  He requested a Chapter 10 in lieu 
of a court-marshal.  

     a.  At the time of his alcohol abuse, he was dealing with matters involving his 
marriage and subsequently ending in divorce.  He sought treatment and it was strongly 
recommended that he be enrolled in Track III.  His commander at the time decided that 
he be enrolled in Track II and he felt this was the cause of him not being successful in 
the treatment of his alcoholism.  He served the Army faithfully for over 13 years and 
received many awards and decorations during his service.  He believes had he received 
the correct treatment this incident would not have occurred.

     b.  After the military he’s been able to overcome his alcoholism and able to hold 
down various jobs.  The past seven years he’s been employed by Sumter School 
District in Sumter, South Carolina as a Custodian.  He no longer drinks and has an 
exemplary driving record.  He feels his record should be corrected to show an 
honorable discharge because he was not given the proper treatment by the military and 
when he sought treatment, he was denied the recommended treatment which resulted 
in a relapse.  

4.  On 7 January 1991, the commanding general of the installation gave him a letter of 
reprimand for driving under the influence of alcohol.  The applicant acknowledged that 
one of the most important responsibilities was to be a role model for junior enlisted 
Soldiers and how his decision was an embarrassment to organization and its 
outstanding Soldiers.    

5.  On 30 April 1991, the commanding general of the installation gave him another letter 
of reprimand for driving in an erratic manner, refusing to take a test which would have 
determined how much alcohol was in your system, and driving while suspended.  

6.  On 26 June 1991, he received a relief for cause NCO evaluation report.  The 
evaluation shows in Part IV- Values/NCO Responsibilities the applicant received a DUI.  
In the competence section it shows he failed a command supply readiness inspection 
and in the leadership section, he sets poor example; it also shows in the responsibility 
section that he was notified.

7.  On 15 July 1991 separation orders were published; they were void of the reason or 
regulation discharged under. 

8.  His records do not have a separation packet; however his DD Form 214 shows:

*	Separation Date: 25 July 1991
*	Total Active Service:  12 years, 8 months, and 18 days
*	Separation Authority:  Chapter 10, AR 635-200
*	Character of Service:  Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
*	Awards:  4 Good Conduct Medals, 2 Army Commendation Medals

9.  His records do not show charges being preferred against the applicant; they did not 
show he voluntarily requested a Chapter 10 under the provisions of AR 635-200.

10.  The applicant provides a copy of his driving records from the last 10 years.  He 
states has apprehended twice for DUI.  He believes the treatment he received as 
opposed to the recommended treatment was the reason he was not successful.  He 
was declared a rehabilitative failure IAW AR 600-85 and AR 635-200, Chapter 9.  He 
requested a Chapter 10 discharge from the service in lieu of a court-martial.  He 
provides eight statements:

     a.  The ADAPCP team states he was referred as a result of an 
investigation/apprehension for driving under the influence of alcohol twice.  It is felt that 
if he had been enrolled in Track III, and received in-patient treatment at the Residential 
Treatment Facility with follow-up out-patient care he probably would not be requesting 
separation, and his military career would have been salvaged.  

     b.  The seven other character letters come from the applicants coworkers at Sumter 
High School Athletics department, where he is a custodian worker.  Ms. M___, Mr. L__, 
Mr. S___, Ms. S___, Mr. J___, Ms. N___, and Ms. R___ all speak highly of his 
character and work ethic.

11.  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.

12.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, his 
service record, and his statements in light of the published guidance on equity, injustice, 
or clemency.


BOARD DISCUSSION:

After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined there is sufficient 
evidence to grant partial relief.  The applicant’s contentions and character witness 
statements were carefully considered.  The Board applied Department of Defense 
standards of liberal consideration to the complete evidentiary record.  The Board agreed 
to show clemency in this case.  Based upon the misconduct, the Board concluded his 
request does not warrant an upgrade to an honorable discharge; however, an under 
honorable conditions characterization is appropriate.

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 reissuing 
him a DD Form 214 for the period ending 25 July 1991 showing his characterization of 
service as under honorable conditions.

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 his characterization of service to honorable.


	  
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 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), in effect at the 
time, stated when the general court-martial authority determined that a Soldier was to 
be discharged from the service under other than honorable conditions he was reduced 
to the lowest enlisted grade.  Board action was not required for this reduction.

3.  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 states: 

     a.  Chapter 10 stated a member who was charged with an offense or offenses for 
which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request 
for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request 
could be submitted at any time after charges had been preferred and must have 
included the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general 
discharge was authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions was 
normally issued to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service.

	(1)  If a member, after receiving counsel elects to submit a request for discharge 
for the good of the service, the member will personally sign a written request, certifying 
they have been counseled, understands his rights, nature of the discharge and possible 
consequences; and 

	(2)  Consulting counsel will sign as a witness.           

     b.  An honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to 
benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization was appropriate when the 
quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct 
and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any 
other characterization would have been clearly inappropriate.

     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.  The regulation does not provided for a Narrative Reason for Separation of 
"Administrative discharge conduct triable by court-martial." 
 
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.  

     a.  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, 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.  

     b.  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)	 AR20180001639
	
5

1