ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  5 August 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20190001283


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration of the previous Army Board for Correction 
of Military Records (ABCMR) decision as promulgated in Docket Number 
AR2002066728 on 11 April 2002.  Specifically, he requests his under honorable 
conditions (general) 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), dated 8 October 2018
*	Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of 
Claim), dated 8 March 2019

FACTS:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in the 
previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number 
AR2002066728 on 11 April 2002.

2.  The applicant states his outgoing physical notes he suffered from depression and 
anxiety; however, nothing was done about it.  Upon coming back from Texas, he was 
admitted to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) the following year for psychiatric 
evaluation.  He has been in and out of prison and unemployable since he got out of the 
military and this all stems from his time in the military.  He has been on depression and 
anxiety medication since 2012.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 June 1985.

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 for the indicated 
offenses:

*	on 24 June 1986, for failing to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of 
duty, on or about 23 June 1986
*	on 9 October 1986, for failing to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place 
of duty, on or about 24 September 1986
*	on 11 December 1986, for failing to obey a lawful order, on or about 4 February 
1986, and for wrongfully having hard liquor in the billets, on or about 
14 November 1986

5.  The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 20 February 1987, which 
found him mentally responsible and able to participate in board proceedings.

6.  The applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant on 9 March 1987 of his 
intent to initiate separation actions against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 13, for unsatisfactory 
performance.  The specific reason cited was the applicant’s record of disciplinary 
infractions.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation 
memorandum.  

7.  The applicant consulted with counsel on 9 March 1987.  After consulting with 
counsel, the applicant waived his right to consideration of his case by a board of 
officers, personal appearance before a board of officers, and to submit statements in his 
own behalf.

8.  The applicant's commander formally recommended his separation from service 
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13.  The separation authority 
approved the recommended discharge on 12 March 1987 and directed that the 
applicant receive an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

9.  The applicant was discharged on 19 March 1987.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty) confirms he was discharged under the 
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, by reason of unsatisfactory 
performance.  His service was characterized as under honorable conditions.

10.  The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade 
of his discharge.  The ADRB determined he was properly and equitably discharged and 
denied his request on 19 February 1990.

11.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained on 4 June 2019 
from the Army Review Boards Agency Medical Advisor/Psychologist.  

	a.  The advisory official opined:

*	the applicant did not have a boardable behavioral health condition at the time 
of his separation, nor is there evidence he had a boardable condition that was 
not diagnosed
*	the applicant did not have a condition that failed medical retention standards 
nor is there evidence he was unfit
*	the applicant did not have mitigating medical or behavioral health conditions 
for the offenses that led to his separation

	b.  The applicant was provided a copy of this advisory opinion to provide him an 
opportunity to comment and/or submit a rebuttal.  He did not respond.

12.  The Board should consider the applicant's overall record and the statement he 
provided 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, a medical advisory opinion 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, the reason 
for his separation and whether to apply clemency or liberal consideration to his request.  
The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigation for his misconduct and 
considered the review and conclusions of the medical advising official regarding the 
absence of evidence of a mitigating condition.  The applicant did not provide 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number 
AR2002066728 on 11 April 2002.



	  
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 requirements and procedures for 
administrative discharge 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 13 provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when in 
the commander’s judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory Soldier; 
retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the 
service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will 
continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the 
future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely.  Service of Soldiers 
separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be 
characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

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.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20190001283

5

1