ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


IN THE CASE OF: 
BOARD DATE: 3 October 2019 
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180008877

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

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

   *	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
   *	Self-authored statement 
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 in a self-authored statement, in effect:

   a.	His discharge was based on false accusations, there was no proof of illegal drug 
use and he had no representation during the discharge process.

   b.	When he received some of his missing documents, he noticed there was a form 
he signed, which he does not remember signing due to the stressful situation (sic).

   c.	His former spouse was questioned for five hours by the Belgium Police, where 
she admitted to using marijuana.

   d.	He was given many drug tests and passed all of them. When he passed the 
tests, his command attempted to say he abused alcohol. He then volunteered for 
alcohol classes (sic).

e.	He loved the Army and was on the right track.



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

   a.	He entered active duty on 16 July 1980.

   b.	It is unknown the exact date as to when the applicant's immediate commander 
notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the 
provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted 
Separations), paragraph 14-12c, Section III, for misconduct - abuse of illegal drugs.

   c.	The applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's intent to separate him. 
on 20 January 2009. He consulted with legal counsel who advised him of the basis for 
the contemplated separation action for misconduct and its effects, of the rights available 
to him, and the effect of his actions taken by him in waiving his rights. He conditionally 
waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon 
him receiving a characterization of service or description of separation no less favorable 
than under honorable conditions – otherwise referred to as a “General” discharge. He 
elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He acknowledged he:

*	understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if 
a general discharge under honorable conditions were issued to him
*	understood he could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under 
Federal and State laws as a result of the issuance of a discharge under other 
than honorable conditions
*	understood if he received a discharge characterization of less than honorable, 
he could make an application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) 
or the ABCMR for an upgrade, but he understood that an act of consideration 
by either board did not imply his discharge would be upgraded

   d.	On 21 June 1988, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge 
under the provisions AR 635-200, Chapter 14, with his service characterized as general 
under honorable conditions.

   e.	His DD Form 214(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) confirms 
he was discharged on 2 August 1988, under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 
14-12c, misconduct/abuse of illegal drugs, with his service characterized as under 
honorable conditions.  He completed 8 years and 17 days of net active service.

4.	The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade 
on 10 October 1989. The ADRB determined the discharge was both proper and 
equitable and voted to deny relief.

5.	Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) states, 
action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct such as commission of a 
serious offense. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally 
appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.





6.	The Board should consider the applicant's submissions in accordance with the 
published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

After reviewing the application, the applicant's statement and all supporting documents, 
to include the DoD guidance on consideration of discharge upgrade requests, the Board 
determined that partial relief was warranted. The Board found no mitigating factors and 
the applicant provided no evidence of post-service achievements or letters of reference 
in support of a clemency determination. Based upon a preponderance of evidence and 
the misconduct which led to the applicant’s separation, the Board concluded there was 
insufficient evidence of an error or injustice which would warrant making a change to the 
characterization of service. The Board did note that the applicant had a prior period of 
honorable service which is currently not reflected on his DD Form 214 and they 
recommended that change be completed to more accurately depict his military service.

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 adding the 
following additional statement to block 18 (Remarks) of his DD Form 214: “Continuous 
honorable active service from 16 July 1980 until 25 May 1987.”
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.
10/25/2019

 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 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), in effect at 
the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

   a.	Paragraph 3-7a states 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 states 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 14, of the version in effect at the time, established policy and prescribed 
procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories included minor
   


disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and 
convictions by civil authorities. It provided that action would be taken to separate a 
member for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was 
impracticable or was unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable 
conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.
However, the separation authority could direct an honorable discharge if merited by the 
Soldier's overall record.

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