ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


IN THE CASE OF: 
BOARD DATE: 25 September 2019 
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180006064

APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect, reconsideration of his earlier request to upgrade his 
discharge from general under honorable conditions to honorable.


APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:
DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) 
FACTS:
1.	Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the 
previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of 
Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20100025035 on 20 April 2011.

2.	The applicant states that he would like the Board to reconsider their decision and 
upgrade his discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable. The last 
time that he was in trouble was in 2014 for misdemeanor shoplifting.

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

   a.	He enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 18 February 1980.

   b.	He served in Germany from 17 January 1983 to 9 February 1984 and Alaska 
from 28 February 1984 to 27 February 1985.

   c.	He accepted non judicial punishment (NJP) on 1 July 1986 for wrongful use of 
cocaine on or about 11 April 1986 to 11 May 1986. He was reduced to the rank of 
private first class (PFC)/E-3.

   d.	Court document (Judgement of Conviction: Sentence and Order to Sheriff), dated 
8 January 1987, shows that the applicant was given probation for 1 year unsupervised 
for the unlawful use of a controlled substance. He also had to complete an County Drug 
Program, 20 days of work release and pay court costs.
   


   e.	CID (Criminal Investigation Division) Report, dated 23 January 1987, shows that 
the applicant was in a parking lot on 2 October 1986 where he was titled for attempted 
unlawful possession of a schedule II controlled substance (cocaine).

   f.	On 25 February 1987, chain of command recommended separation under the 
provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel) paragraph 14-12c 
(Commission of a Serious Offense). The chain of command indicated that the reason 
for separation was due to being a second time offender of illegal drugs and conviction 
by civil authorities and sentenced to a period of confinement in excess of six months.

   g.	The applicant acknowledged notification of separation on 25 February 1987. His 
elections of rights indicated that he had been advised by his consulting counsel of the 
basis for the contemplated action to separate him for commission of a serious offense. 
He submitted a statement on his behalf and requested consulting counsel represent him 
and he understood that he may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a 
general discharge is issued.

   h.	On 25 February 1987, he was advised by his consulting counsel of the basis for 
the contemplating action to separate him for misconduct under AR 635-200,
Chapter 14-12c and its effects; of the rights available to him; and the effects of any 
action taken by him in waiving his rights. He understood if he had less than six years 
total of active and reserve military service at the time of separation and am being 
considered for separation for misconduct under AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, he is not 
entitled to have his case heard by an administrative separation board.

   i.	A memorandum, dated 10 March 1987, states that the applicant failed to submit a 
statement on his behalf after being provided with a reasonable amount of time to 
complete this action for his discharge case and that his packet will be processed.

   j.	On 17 March 1987, the separation authority approved separation under the 
provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14-12c for commission of a serious offense. He also 
recommended a general discharge certificate.

   k.	He was discharged from active duty on 24 March 1987. His DD Form 214 
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that he was discharged 
under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14-12c (block 28) narrative reason of 
commission of a serious offense and a character of service (block 24) general, under 
honorable conditions. It also shows that he completed 7 years and 24 days of active 
duty service.  He was awarded or authorized:

l.	On 19 April 2011, ABCMR denied the applicant’s request for case number
AR 20100025035 pertaining to his request to upgrade his discharge from general, under 
honorable conditions to honorable.  The Board further states that the evidence 
presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.



Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a 
basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

4.	AR 635-200 establishes policy and prescribe procedures for separating personnel for 
misconduct because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, 
commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, and absence 
without leave.

5.	By regulation (AR 635-5), for Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of the 
DD Form 214, enter the reason for separation (shown in AR 635-5-1) based on the
regulatory or statutory authority. Block 24 (Character of Service) authorized entries are 
Honorable, Under Honorable Conditions (General), Under Other Than Honorable 
Conditions, Bad Conduct, Dishonorable, To Be Determined, and Not Applicable. A 
Soldier who is separated under chapter 14-12c of AR 635-200 is assigned Separation 
Code JKQ which means Commission of a Serious Offense.

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, the Board determined relief is not 
warranted. The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered as were his record of 
service, the frequency and nature of his misconduct, his civil Judgement of Conviction 
and the reason for his separation.  The Board applied Department of Defense 
standards for consideration of discharge upgrade requests to the complete evidentiary 
record and did not find any evidence of error, injustice, or inequity. The Board found 
insufficient evidence of in-service mitigation for the misconduct and the applicant did 
not provide character witness statements or evidence of post-service achievements for 
the Board to consider in support of clemency. Based on a preponderance of evidence, 
to include, the multiple drug offenses leading to the applicant’s separation and a lack of 
post-service evidence, 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket
Number AR20100025035 on 20 April 2011.


12/4/2019

 X	
CHAIRPERSON
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 (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted 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 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 (General Discharge) states a general discharge is a separation 
from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a member 
whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an 
honorable discharge

   c.	Chapter 14 of that regulation states members are subject to separation for a 
pattern of misconduct consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military 
authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.
   


3.	AR 635-5 (Separation Documents) DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214, 
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).will be issued to provide missing 
information or to correct any information. Block 24 (Character of Service) authorized 
entries are Honorable, Under Honorable Conditions (General), Under Other Than 
Honorable Conditions, Bad Conduct, Dishonorable, To Be Determined, and Not 
Applicable. Block 28 (narrative reason for separation) enter the reason for separation 
(shown in AR 635-5-1) based on the regulatory or statutory authority “DD Form 215 
(Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) will 
be issued to provide missing information.” DD Form 215 will be issued when the 
missing information becomes available.

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. 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//