ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:

	BOARD DATE:  14 June 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20180011234


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  The applicant requests his under other than honorable 
conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	DD Form 214  (Certification Release of Discharge)

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 requests an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge to honorable in order to 
qualify for Veteran Benefits.

3.  On 27 November 1984, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years and 14 
weeks.  A review of the applicant’s records shows that he was given 3 Article 15s for:

*	On 19 March and 8 May 1986 for failure to be at appointed place of duty
*	On 1 August 1986 for wrongful possession of marijuana

4. The applicants records are absent of a complete separation packet; however the 
applicant submitted a characterization upgrade to the Army Council of Review Boards.  
The packet indicates:

      a.  On 21 August 1986, the applicant was charged with Absent without Leave 
(AWOL) from 16 June 1986 to 29 July 1986.

	b.  On 21 August 1986, the applicant consulted with counsel and requested 
discharge for the Good of the Service under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, 
and declined to submit a statement on his own behalf.

	c.  On 18 December 1986, the approval authority approved his request for 
discharge and directed a reduction to Private E1 and a separation with the award of an 
Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge.

5.  On 19 February 1987, he was discharged accordingly, his service was characterized 
as UOTHC.  His DD 214 shows he completed 2 year, 1 month, and 19 days of net 
active service.  His awards and decorations are the Army Service Ribbon, and reflects 
the award of the marksman qualification Badge for the M-16 rifle and expert for the 
Hand Grenade.  

6.  On 2 November 1994, the applicant submitted a request to change the character of 
discharge to the Army Council of Review Boards.  The applicants request was denied.  
The board said in effect:  After careful consideration of your military records and all 
other available evidence, the board has determined that you were properly and 
equitably discharged.

7.  His records shows that he was discharged with an UOTHC as an administrative 
discharge with conduct triable by court martial.  His records also show that he served 2 
years of his 3 year contract.

8.  The ABCMR does not grant requests for upgrade of discharges solely for the 
purpose of making the applicant eligible for veterans' benefits; however, in reaching its 
determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, his service record, and 
his statements in light of the published DOD guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency.


BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, 
evidence in the records and published DoD guidance for consideration of discharge 
upgrade requests.  The Board discussed the applicant’s service record, the frequency 
and nature of his misconduct and whether to apply clemency.  The Board determined 
that there were no mitigating factors in the records or provided by the applicant in 
support of clemency and that the character of service the applicant received upon 
separation was not in error or unjust.

2.  After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that 
relief was not warranted.



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.


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.

   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.

    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.  An UOTHC is an administrative separation from the service under conditions other 
than honorable.  It may be issued for misconduct.  In a case in which an UOTHC is 
authorized by regulation, 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. 

   	 

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.



ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20180011234

5

1