ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


IN THE CASE OF: 
BOARD DATE:  6 May 2019
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180016242


APPLICANT REQUESTS: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be 
upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

*	DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of the Discharge from the Armed 
Forces of the United States)
*	DD Forms 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document – Armed Forces of the United 
States) dated 20 February 1986 and 30 January 1990
*	DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II)
*	DA Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the 
period ending 8 January 1991
   *	National Personnel Records Center letter, dated 22 October 2018 
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 his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one 
isolated incident in 53 months of service, with no other adverse action.

3.	The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 August 1986. He executed an 
immediate reenlistment on 30 January 1990.

4.	The applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) on 2 April 1990, under the 
provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failure to go 
at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, on or about 22 March 1990.

5.	The applicant's record contains six DA Forms 4856 (General Counseling Form), 
dated between March and September 1990, which show he was counseled for failure to



repair, follow orders, failure to pay just debts, and wrongful appropriation of a 
government vehicle.

6.	The applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant on 14 November 1990 
of his intent to initiate separation actions against him under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b, 
for misconduct – pattern of misconduct. His commander cited, as the specific reasons 
for the proposed separation, the applicant’s failure to pay just debts and his wrongful 
appropriation of a government vehicle.

7.	The applicant consulted with counsel and was advised of the basis for the 
contemplated actions to separate him and the rights available to him. He waived 
consideration of his case by, and personal appearance before, an administrative 
separation board. He acknowledged his understanding and elected not to submit a 
statement in his own behalf.

8.	The applicant's immediate commander formally recommended his separation from 
service on 14 November 1990, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, 
Chapter 14, by reason of misconduct. The separation authority approved the 
recommended action and directed the issuance of a general discharge.

9.	The applicant was discharged on 8 January 1991. His DD Form 214 confirms he 
was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, 
by reason of misconduct – pattern of misconduct. His service was characterized as 
under honorable conditions (general).

10.	The Board should consider the applicant's 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 evidence of 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 14 of this regulation establishes policy and prescribes procedures for 
separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary 
infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil 
authorities, desertion, or absences without leave. 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 under other than honorable conditions is normally 
considered appropriate. 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//