ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTIONS OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

                   IN THE CASE OF:

                   BOARD DATE:  3 May 2019

                   DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20180015031

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) 
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), with self-authored statement
FACTS: 

1.  The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. 
Code (USC), Section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military 
Records (ABCMR) 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 effect, that he enlisted for three years and he served three 
years.  He was 17 years old at the time he enlisted and he had no idea what he was 
getting himself into.  It has been 38 years since he was discharged and he would 
appreciate a strong consideration regarding an upgrade, as he feels an upgrade is 
warranted.    

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 January 1977.  

4.  The applicant nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on the following dates for the indicated 
offenses:

   a.	On 15 February 1978, for possessing on hand rolled cigarette, suspected of 
being marijuana, on or about 12 February 1978.

   b.	On 21 September 1978, for failing to go to his prescribed place of duty, on or 
about 21 September 1978.

   c.	On 12 September 1979, for being disrespectful in language towards his superior 
noncommissioned officer on or about 3 September 1979, and for willfully disobeying his 
superior commissioned officer on or about 3 September 1979, and for willfully 
disobeying his superior warrant officer on or about 4 September 1979.  An appeal was 
denied because the applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) before the appeal 
request was completed.

   d.	On 10 October 1979, for without authority absenting himself from his unit, from 
on or about 18 September 1979 through on or about 27 September 1979.

5.  The applicant's separation documents are not available for review.  However his 
record contains the following documents:

   a.	DA Form 268 (Report of Suspension of Favorable Personnel Action), dated  
12 October 1979, showing he was pending Chapter 14 elimination. 

   b.	DA Form 4126-R (Bar to Enlistment/Reenlistment Certificate) and a 
memorandum for record approving his bar to reenlistment pending his discharge 
processing, with the remark "not recommended for further service."  

6.  Orders Number 15-10, issued by the Headquarters, 24th Infantry Division 
(Mechanized) and Fort Stewart , Fort Stewart, GA on 21 January 1980, reassigned the 
applicant to the transition point for discharge processing effective 22 January 1980 and 
order the applicant’s discharge effective 22 January 1980.  

7.  The applicant was discharged on 22 January 1980, under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-33b (1), by reason of misconduct – frequent 
incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities.  His DD Form 214 shows his 
service was characterized as UOTHC.  His DD Form 214 further shows in:

*	Item 12c (Record of Service – Net Active Service This Period), he was credited 
with completing 2 year, 11 months, and 26 days of net active service
*	Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation), the entry "misconduct - frequent 
incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities"
*	Item 29 (Dates of Time Lost During this Period), the entry "790918-790926"

8.  In reaching its determination, the Board should consider the applicant’s the 
applicant's overall record and 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 applicant’s contentions were carefully 
considered.  The Board applied Department of Defense standards of liberal 
consideration to the complete evidentiary record and did not find any evidence of error, 
injustice, or inequity.  He did not provide character witness statements or evidence of 
post-service achievements for the Board to consider.  Based upon the record, the Board 
agreed that the applicant's discharge characterization was warranted as a result of the 
misconduct.

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):  N/A


REFERENCES:
1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of 
military records must be filed within 3 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 3-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.  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 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members 
for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions (a pattern of 
misconduct consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions), a pattern of 
misconduct (consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or 
conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline).  Action will be taken to separate a 
member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable 
or is unlikely to succeed.  A discharge UOTHC is normally appropriate for a Soldier 
discharged under this chapter.  However, the separation authority may direct a general 
discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record.

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)	AR20180015031
3