ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  15 April 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20180015046


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

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

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

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.  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 AR20130003667 on 17 July 2013.

3.  The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge in order to obtain a job in law 
enforcement or any governmental agency.  He states that he deployed to Iraq (His 
records do not support this assertion).

4.  The applicants records shows that he enlisted in the Army Reserve on 14 May 2002, 
he served honorably and was discharged on 22 August 2005.  On 23 August 2005, the 
applicant joined the Regular Army for a period of 3 years and 10 weeks.

5.  On 9 May 2012, the applicant was charged with 2 specifications of violating the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86 for being Absent Without Leave (AWOL) 
from 28 July 2006 through 6 May 2007 and 8 May 2007 through 6 March 2012.

6.  On 4 June 2012, the applicant acknowledged that his commander was exercising 
General Courts-Martial Convening Authority by informing him of separation under AR 
635-200, Chapter 10.  The applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the 
service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 
(Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.  He consulted with legal 
counsel and was advised of the basis for the trial by court-martial, his available rights 
and the basis for voluntarily requesting discharge under the provision of Army 
Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He acknowledged he could be ineligible for many or 
all Army and/or Veterans Affairs Benefits.  He signed a request for discharge and 
indicated he would not submit statements in his own behalf.

7.  On 19 June 2012, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant's 
request directing the applicant be discharged and furnished an UOTHC discharge 
certificate.

8.  On 29 June 2012, he was discharged accordingly, his service was characterized as 
UOTHC.  His DD 214 shows he completed 3 months and 1 day of total net service for 
this enlistment period; and reflects the award of the National Defense Service Medal 
and the Army Service Ribbon.  

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 states a Chapter 10 is a voluntary discharge request in-
lieu of trial by court martial.  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.

10.  On 17 July 2013, the applicant submitted a request for change in the character 
and/or reason for his discharge to the Army Discharge Review Board.  The Board 
determined that he was properly and equitably discharged.  As a result, his request was 
denied.

11.  The applicant’s records shows that he served honorably in the Army Reserve for 3 
years and joined the Army for 3 years.  His records also shows that he completed 3 
months of his 3 year enlistment.  

12.  The Board doesn’t award relief for the basis of receiving 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:

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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket 
Number AR20130003667 on 17 July 2013.


	  
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.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//


ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20180015046

2

1