ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

Record of Proceedings 
BOARD DATE:  24 April 2020 
DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20180016774 
APPLICANT REQUESTS:  His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) 
discharge be upgraded to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge; correction 
of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) to show a more favorable 
narrative reason for separation; and a personal hearing before the Board. 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
•	DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of 
the United States), dated 3 October 2018
•	11 pages of medical documents, dated between 19 September 1967 and 29 
January 1975
•	DD Form 214, for the period ending 27 February 1975
•	Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decision letter, dated 1 October 2010 
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:
a. He was just 18 years old when he was drafted.  He got married in 1969 and had
a child.  His wife got pregnant with their second child, which made matters worse for his 
family.  He became very depressed and on top of that his feet got infected with a fungus 
that he still to this day is being treated for. 
b.	When he was in advanced individual training, he was pushed down some stairs
and tore ligaments in both knees.  He had to have surgery and it stops him from working 
a job.  He suffered discrimination and was accused of a crime that he had to plead guilty 
to.  He was an 18 year old boy with no understanding. 
c.	He served as best as he could under all that happened until he couldn’t anymore.
He needs his Army benefits to live, as his injuries keep getting worse.  Racial tension 
back then was terrible, especially with him being young and being away from home.  It 
was tough and he would like to get his life back by having his discharge upgraded. 
 
3.	The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 15 April 1968. 
 
4.	The applicant accepted non-judicial punishment, under the provisions of Article 15 
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on the following dates: 
 
•	on 4 July 1968, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 1 July 
1968 to on or about 2 July 1968 
•	on 27 March 1969, for being AWOL from on or about 24 March 1969 to on or 
about 27 March 1969 
 
5.	Before a special court-martial on or about 22 July 1969, at Fort Meade, MD, the 
applicant was found guilty of being AWOL from on or about 28 April 1969 through 
on or about 17 June 1969; of pandering at the officers open mess on or about 1 
March 1969; and of conspiring to engage in sexual intercourse with other enlisted 
members on or about 1 March 1969.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard 
labor for four months. 
 
6.	Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 28 January 1975, for 
violations of the UCMJ.  His DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) shows he was charged 
with being AWOL from on or about 2 August 1969 through on or about 28 January 
1975. 
 
7.	A Standard Form (SF) 93 (Report of Medical History), dated 29 January 1975, 
indicates the applicant received a physical evaluation for the purpose of separation. 
 
8.	The applicant consulted with legal counsel on 30 January 1975. 
 
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 under other than honorable conditions 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 courtmartial.  In his request for discharge, he acknowledged his 
understanding that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge 
against him, or of a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of 
a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  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 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and he could be 
deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State 
laws. 
 
c.	He elected to submit a statement in his own behalf; however, his 
statement is not available for review. 
 
9.	The separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge on 6 
February 1975, and directed that the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted 
grade and be issued a DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge Certificate). 
 
10.	The applicant was discharged on 27 February 1975, under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10.  The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms his 
service was characterized as UOTHC. 
 
11.	The applicant was charged due to the commission of an offense punishable under 
the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  Subsequent to being charged, he consulted 
with counsel and requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, Chapter 10.  Such discharges are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu 
of trial by court-martial. 
 
12.	The applicant provides: 
 
•	11 pages of medical record documents from his period of military service 
•	a VA decision letter, dated 1 October 2010, wherein his military service was 
determined to be a bar to VA benefits. 
 
13.	The Board should consider the applicant's statement and overall military record in 
accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination 
guidance. 
 
BOARD DISCUSSION: 
 
1.	The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, 
evidence in the records and published DoD guidance for 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 medical records provided by the applicant and the VA 
decision letter.  The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigation to 
overcome the applicant’s misconduct and the applicant provided no evidence of 
postservice 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.	The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully 
considered. In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and 
equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to 
serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 
3.	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. 
 
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 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for 
correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.  
The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the 
presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an 
error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.  It is not an investigative body.  
The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing.  Applicants do not have a right to a 
hearing before the ABCMR.  The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing 
whenever justice requires. 
 
3.	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 provides that 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 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. 
 
4.	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) 	 AR20180016774 
 
 
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) 	 AR20180016774 
 
 
1 
2 

1