ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
BOARD DATE:  31 October 2019 
DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20180016191 
APPLICANT REQUESTS:  upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable 
conditions (UOTHC). 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
? DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
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 (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 his discharge should be upgraded to honorable because he 
was suffering from depression and didn’t know it at the time.
3.	The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 June 1981.
4.	Multiple DA Forms 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code 
of Military Justice (UCMJ)), show he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) 
under Article 15 of the UCMJ on the following occasions for the following 
misconduct:
•	21 October 1981, for absenting himself from his organization without authority on
12 October 1981 and remaining absent until 20 October 1981
•	2 June 1983, for absenting himself from his place of duty without authority on 7
May 1983 and remaining absent until 13 May 1983
5.	On 26 July 1990, he acknowledged he did not elect to undergo a separation 
examination and that his medical records would be reviewed by a physician at the 
appropriate medical treatment facility.  If the review indicated that a medical 
examination should be accomplished, he would be scheduled for an examination.
6.	A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 30 July 1990, shows he was charged with 
absenting himself from his organization without authority on or about 12 July 1983 
and remaining absent until on or about 24 July 1990.
7.	On 30 July 1990, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of 
the service under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel 
Separations – Enlisted Personnel).  He consulted with counsel and was advised of 
the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible 
punishment authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the possible 
effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions, and the procedures 
and rights available to him.  He did not submit statements in his own behalf.
8.	On 7 August 1990, his chain of command recommended approval of his request 
for discharge and recommended the issuance of a UOTHC Discharge Certificate.
The applicant’s conduct rendered him triable by court-martial under circumstances 
which could lead to a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  Based on his record, 
punishment could not be expected to have a rehabilitative effect.  There did not 
appear to be any reasonable ground to believe the applicant was mentally defective, 
deranged, or abnormal at the time of his misconduct.
9.	On 14 August 1990, the approval authority approved the request for discharge 
for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 
10. He directed the applicant’s UOTHC discharge and reduction to the lowest 
enlisted rank/grade.
10.	His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows 
he was discharged on 4 December 1981 under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of court-martial.  He was 
credited with 2 years, 3 months, and 3 days of net active service this period, with lost 
time from 7 May 1983 through 12 May 1983, 12 July 1983 through 9 June 1984, 10 
June 1984 through 23 July 1990 (Not chargeable ), and 30 July 1990 through 24 
September 1990 (Excess leave).  His service was characterized as UOTHC.
11.	There is no evidence of record the applicant was diagnosed with or treated for 
amental health condition during his period of service.
12.	On 3 October 2019, the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) psychologist 
provided an advisory opinion, stating there is no documentation to support the 
existence of a behavioral health condition at the time of the applicant’s discharge. 
The available records indicate the applicant met medical retention standards and 
there is no behavioral health condition to consider mitigation of his misconduct.  A 
copy of the complete medical advisory was provided to the Board for their review 
and consideration.
13.	The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion on 8 October 2019 
and given an opportunity to submit comments, but he did not respond.
BOARD DISCUSSION: 
1.	The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, 
evidence in the records, a medical advisory and published DoD guidance for liberal 
consideration of discharge upgrade requests.  The Board considered the applicant’s 
statement, his record of service, the frequency and nature of his misconduct and the 
reason for his separation.  The Board considered the applicant’s claim of depression 
as the reason for his AWOL and the review and conclusions of the medical advising 
official.  The Board concurred with the advising official and found no evidence of 
inservice mitigating factors for his misconduct; the applicant provided no evidence of 
post-service achievements or letters of reference in support of a clemency 
determination.  Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined 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. 
 
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.	On 25 August 2017, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel 
and Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to 
DRBs and BCM/NRs when considering requests by veterans for modification of their 
discharges due in whole or in part to:  mental health conditions, including PTSD, 
traumatic brain injury, sexual assault, or sexual harassment.  Boards are to give 
liberal consideration to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application 
for relief is based, in whole or in part, on those conditions or experiences.  The 
guidance further describes evidence sources and criteria and requires boards to 
consider the conditions or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation 
for misconduct that led to the discharge. 
 	 
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 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.  This 
guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to 
guide BCM/NRs 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.  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. 
 	 
4.	Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) sets 
forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 
 	 
a.	Chapter 10 provides that a member who had committed an offense or offenses 
for which the authorized sentence 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 were preferred.  Although an 
honorable or general discharge could be directed, an Undesirable Discharge 
Certificate would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the 
good of the service. 
 	 
b.	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. 
 	 
c.	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. 
 	 
d.	A discharge UOTHC is an administrative separation from the service under 
conditions other than honorable.  It may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, 
security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial.  When a Soldier is discharged 
UOTHC, the separation authority will direct an immediate reduction to the lowest 
enlisted grade. 
 
NOTHING FOLLOWS 
	ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) 	 AR20180016191 
	ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) 	 AR20180016191 
1 
4 

1