ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	

	BOARD DATE:  11 September 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20180005964


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  an upgrade of his general under honorable conditions 
discharge to an 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 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 would like the status of his discharge to be upgraded to 
honorable instead of a general under honorable conditions.

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

a.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 February 1983.

b.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice on/for: 

*	7 September 1983, failure to be at his appointed place of duty
*	7 October 1983, for wrongful use of habit forming narcotic (marijuana) and 
failure to be at his prescribed place of duty
*	2 March 1984, without authority, failure to be at his appointed place of 
duty

c.  On 22 Dec 1983, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent 
to initiate separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation (AR)     
635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, (Unsatisfactory 
Performance) and a characterized of service of General Under Honorable Conditions 
Discharge.  The reasons for the proposed actions are:
*	lack of motivation
*	lack of self-discipline
*	failure to demonstrate promotion potential
*	inability to accept instructions or directions
*	clearly substandard performance
*	lack of cooperation with peers and superiors

d.  On 5 April 1984, the applicant consulted with legal counsel.  He was advised of 
the basis for the contemplated separation for unsuitability, the type of discharge he 
could receive and its effect on further enlistment or reenlistment, the possible effects of 
this discharge, and of the procedures/rights that were available to him.  He further 
indicated that he understood:

*	he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general 
discharge under honorable conditions was issued to him
*	he could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under Federal and 
State laws as a result of the issuance of an under other than honorable 
conditions discharge

e.  The applicant submitted a letter, which states:

(1).  He should not be chaptered out of the military because he 
was under the understanding that he had a two part mission.  He was a Soldier and a 
student at Fort Devens, and academics were stressed.  He felt that he completed both 
obligations to the fullest.  He was an outstanding Soldier academically and felt that 
should have been taken into consideration.  

(2).  He realized that he had been involved in a few unfortunate events and 
some labeled him as bad Soldier, which weighed to an unfair disadvantage.  He could 
be a valuable asset to the military if given another chance.  However, if was to be 
chaptered out of the military he believed that he did not deserve anything less than an 
honorable discharge.  He hoped the commander would consider 

f.  Consistent with the chain of command’s recommendation, the separation 
authority approved the discharge on 12 April 1984, and is issued in accordance with 
AR 635 200, Chapter 13, waived the requirement for a rehabilitative transfer and 
directed he be discharged with a general discharge under honorable conditions.

   g.  On 19 April 1984, he was discharged from active duty.  He served 1 year,            
2 months and 2 days of net active service.  He was awarded or authorized the 
Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Riffle Bar (M-16).

4.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board 
for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
5.  The Board should consider the applicant's submissions in accordance with the 
published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance.  

BOARD DISCUSSION:

After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined relief is not 
warranted.  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 evidence of post-service achievements for the Board to 
consider.  He was discharged for an unsatisfactory performance and was provided an 
under honorable conditions (General) characterization of service.  The Board agreed 
that the applicant's discharge characterization is warranted as he did not meet the 
standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.

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.



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), sets forth the 
basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  
   a.  Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor 
and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  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.

   b.  Paragraph 3-7b 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.  Chapter 13 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, if it is clearly established 
that the Soldier will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training 
and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.  Further stating it is likely that the Solider will be a 
disruptive influence in present or future duty assignments and his ability 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 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)	 AR20180005964

4

1