ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	

	BOARD DATE:  23 May 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20180015005


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration of the previous Army Board for Correction 
of Military Records (ABCMR) decision as promulgated in Docket Number 
AR20120008333 on 6 December 2012.  The applicant, the widow of a deceased former 
service member (FSM), requests her late husband's under honorable conditions 
(general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions 
of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552)
*	two pages of a DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record)
*	excerpt from the FSM’s record
*	Certificate of Marriage, dated 13 February 2014
*	Certificate in honor of the FSM, undated

FACTS:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in the 
previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number 
AR20120008333 on 6 December 2012.

2.  The applicant states the FSM was an honorable Veteran who was found not guilty of 
being AWOL and was reassigned with the benefit of an honorable discharge.  The 
President of the United States acknowledged that he served honorably.  His burial and 
other expenses need to be paid.

3.  The FSM was inducted into the Army of the United States on 14 June 1969. 

4.  The FSM accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) on 20 October 1969, under the 
provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent 
without leave (AWOL) from on or about 2300 hours, 19 October 1969, through on or 
about 0130 hours, 20 October 1969.

5.  Two DA Forms 268 (Report for Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions), dated 
29 June 1971, show the FSM was pending disciplinary action for being AWOL from on 
or about 8 January 1970 through on or about 15 June 1971.  The charges were dropped 
and he was reassigned with a reporting date of 30 September 1971.

6.  Court-martial charges were preferred against the FSM on 18 January 1972 for 
violations of the UCMJ.  The DD Form 458 shows he was charged with being AWOL 
from on or about 14 October 1971 through on or about 30 November 1971; from on or 
about 6 December 1971 through on or about 22 December 1971; and from on or about 
23 December 1971 through on or about 17 January 1972.

7.  The FSM consulted with legal counsel on or about 8 February 1972.

	a.  He was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the 
maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of 
an undesirable discharge, and the procedures and rights that were available to him.

	b.  Subsequent to receiving legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested 
discharge under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – 
Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-
martial.  He further acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request 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, and he could be 
deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.  

	c.  He was advised he could submit any statements he desired in his own behalf; 
however, he elected not to submit a statement.

8.  The separation authority approved the FSM's request for discharge on 14 February 
1972, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the 
service.  The separation authority directed that the FSM be reduced to the lowest 
enlisted grade and be issued a DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge Certificate).

9.  The FSM was discharged on 20 February 1972.  The DD Form 214 (Armed Forces 
of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) he was issued shows he was 
reduced to the lowest enlisted grade, his service was characterized as under other than 
honorable conditions (UOTHC), and he was issued an Undesirable Discharge 
Certificate.

10.  The Department of Defense (DoD) directed the Services, on 4 April 1977, to review 
all less than fully honorable administrative discharges issued between 4 August 1964 
and 28 March 1973.  In the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, this 
program, known as the DoD Special Discharge Review Program (SDRP), required that 
a discharge upgrade to either under honorable conditions or honorable be issued in the 
case of any individual who had either completed a normal tour of duty in Southeast 
Asia, been wounded in action, been awarded a military decoration other than a service 
medal, had received an honorable discharge from a previous period of service, or had a 
record of satisfactory military service of 24 months prior to discharge.  Consideration of 
other factors, including possible personal problems that may have contributed to the 
acts that led to the discharge and a record of good citizenship since the time of 
discharge, would also be considered upon application by the individual.

11.  In accordance with the provisions of the DoD SDRP, the FSM’s UOTHC discharge 
was upgraded on 20 April 1977 to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  
His previous DD Form 214 was voided and a new DD Form 214 was created to reflect 
this change.

12.  Public Law 95-126 was enacted in October 1978.  This legislation required the 
Service Departments to establish historically-consistent uniform standards for discharge 
reviews.  Reconsideration of all discharges previously upgraded under the DoD SDRP 
was required using these uniform standards.  Individuals whose DoD SDRP upgrades 
were not affirmed upon review under these historically-consistent uniform standards 
were not entitled to VA benefits unless they had been entitled to such benefits before 
their DoD SDRP review.

13.  In accordance with Public Law 95-126, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) 
re-reviewed the FSM’s discharge and determined his characterization was warranted in 
accordance with the DoD SDRP.  He was advised that he would not be able to use his 
upgraded discharge to qualify for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits.  
Accordingly, a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214, Report of Separation from 
Active Duty) was issued that shows his characterization of service was warranted under 
the provisions of the DoD SDRP.

14.  The Board has been advised in similar cases that the VA often requires validation 
or affirmation of SDRP upgrades by the military service corrections boards, in this case 
the ABCMR, in order to authorize the service member VA benefits.

15.  The Board should consider the applicant’s provided statement in accordance with 
the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined there is 
insufficient evidence to grant relief.  The board applied Office of the Secretary of 
Defense standards of liberal consideration and clemency to the complete evidentiary 
record, including the applicant’s statement and did not find any evidence of error, 
injustice, or inequity; the applicant had limited creditable service, no wartime service 
and no mitigating circumstances for the misconduct. The Board agreed that the 
applicant’s discharge characterization is appropriate.

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 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 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.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has 
committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a 
punitive discharge may, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu 
of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have 
been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an 
honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable 
conditions is normally considered appropriate.

3.  The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to 
Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records 
on 25 July 2018, regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations.  Clemency 
generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence.  Boards for 
Correction of Military/Naval Records may grant clemency regardless of the court-martial 
forum.  However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a 
court-martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, 
which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds.  

	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, Boards 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.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20180015005

4

1