ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
BOARD DATE:  29 July 2019 
DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20180011410 
APPLICANT REQUESTS:  reconsideration of his under other than honorable conditions 
discharge. 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
•	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
•	Applicant statement
•	Master of Information Management Certificate
•	Bachelor of Science computer Information Systems
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 AC93-10761 on 12 November 1993.
2.	The applicant states,
a. He was assigned to one week of extra-duty for being late to formation.  While on
extra-duty, he was allowed by his commander to take short breaks when necessary.  
However, he was denied a break because of a zealous Sergeant L.  One day during 
extra-duty, he became unprofessional, by harassing, and hazing him to get back to work 
before the end of his brief break.  He didn't appreciate it, however, he remained calm.   
   b.	He physically stood twelve inches from his face while he was sitting when 
he
began poking upon his face and nose with his finger as if to be scolding him while 
yelling at him, to get back 'to work.  He defensively reacted by swiping his hand from his 
face.  Sergeant L then falsely accused him of striking him to his commander which led 
to this unjustified discharge from the military. 
   c.	He was not arrested by the Army Criminal Investigation Division or military 
police regarding this issue which was protocol, to include no other punitive actions 
were taken against him, except only the pursuits for discharging him after a week of 
performing his usual military duties. 
   d.	His request for an upgrade of discharge from under other than honorable
conditions, to a general discharge, should be granted with consideration of his post 
military behaviors and experiences.  He has enclosed copies of his college degrees.  
He’s had a clean history of no criminal, alcohol, or drug activities.  Thank for your time 
and the patients regarding the issues in this matter. 
3.	The applicant provides:
•	Self authored statement
•	Bachelor of Science computer Information Systems, 3 August 2001
•	Master of Information Management Certificate, 18 December 2005
4.	A review of the applicant’s service records shows:
   a.	He enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 March 1985.
   b.	The charge sheet was void. However, on 17 June 1986, the applicant’s, 
record of
trial by court-martial reflects that he was guilty by a summary court-martial of one 
specification of failure to obey a lawful order and one specification of failing to go at the 
prescribe time to his place of duty.   He was reduced to private/E-1 and forfeiture of 
$300.  The convening authority approved the sentence on 24 June 1986. 
   c.	On 27 June 1986, the judge advocate reviewed and find the record to be 
legally sufficient. 
   d.	He accepted nonjudicial punishment on 19 December 1986 for failure to 
be at his
appointed place and time for duty.  He was reduced to private/E1. 
   e.	On 20 January 1987, court-martial charges were preferred against the 
applicant. His DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) indicates he was charged with one 
specification of assault of a noncommission officer on or about 4 January 1987. 
   f.	On 28 January 1987, he consulted with legal counsel.  Counsel advised 
him of the
contemplated trial by court-martial for offenses punishable by a bad conduct discharge 
or a dishonorable discharge, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under 
the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the possible effects of a request for discharge, and 
of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  Following consultation with 
legal counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of 
trial by court-martial in accordance with chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 
(Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel).  In his request for discharge, he 
acknowledged: 
•	he was making the request of his own free will and he had not been subjected 
to any coercion
•	by submitting this request he was acknowledging he was guilty of the 
charge(s) against him or a lesser included offense
•	he understood that if the discharge request was accepted he could be 
furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate
•	he understood if such a discharge was approved he could be deprived of 
many or all Army benefits, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits 
administered by the Veterans Administration
•	he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both 
Federal and State laws
   g.	Consistent with the chain of command recommendation, on 4 February 
1987, the
separation approval authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge under the 
provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10 and directed his service be characterized under 
other than honorable conditions. 
h. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) reflects
that on 6 February 1987, he was discharged from active duty under the provisions of  
AR 635-200, Chapter 10 (In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial) with an under other than 
honorable conditions characterization of service.  He had 1 year 10 months and 25 days 
of active duty service. 
5.	The Army Discharge Review Board notified him on 30 October 1992 that his 
requested for a change to his character of service was denied.
6.	On 3 November 1993, ABCMR reviewed the applicant's discharge but found it 
proper and equitable.  The Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge.
7.	By regulation (AR 635-200), an individual who has committed an offense or 
offenses, the punishment for which includes a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, 
may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service.  An under other than 
honorable conditions discharge will normally be furnished an individual who is 
discharged for the good of the service.
8.	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 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 applicant’s contentions and post-service 
achievements were carefully considered.  The Board considered the applicant's 
statement, his record and length of service, the frequency and nature of his 
misconduct and the reason for his separation.  The Board found insufficient evidence 
of in-service mitigation to overcome the misconduct and the applicant did not provide 
character witness statements for the Board to consider in support of a clemency 
determination.  Based a preponderance of evidence and the short term of honorable 
service completed prior to a pattern of misconduct, which included charges of violent 
behavior towards others, the Board determined that the applicant's discharge 
characterization was warranted as a result of the misconduct; the Board found no error 
or injustice.
 
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 AC9310761 
on 12 November 1993. 
X 
 
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. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), in effect at 
the time, provides 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 10 of that regulation states an individual who has committed an offense
or offenses, the punishment for which, includes a bad conduct or dishonorable 
discharge, may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service.  An Under 
Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate normally is appropriate for a member who 
is discharged for the good of the service. 
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 
courtmartial; 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) 	 AR20180011410 
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) 	 AR20180011410 
1 
4 

1