ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS






MEMORANDUM FOR Case Management Division, US Army Review Boards 
Agency, 251 18th Street South, Suite 385, Arlington, VA 22202-3531

SUBJECT:  Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings
for AR20190001299

1.  Reference the attached Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record 
of Proceedings, dated 4 April 2019, in which the Board recommended denial of 
the applicant’s request. 
2.  I have reviewed the findings, conclusions, and Board member 
recommendations.  I find there is sufficient evidence to grant relief.  Therefore, 
under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, I direct that all 
Department of the Army Records of the individual concerned be corrected by 
amending his DD Form 214 for the period of service ending 29 January 1975 to 
reflect a General, under honorable conditions character of service.  
3.  Request necessary administrative action be taken to effect the correction of 
records as indicated no later than 30 September 2019.  Further, request that the 
individual concerned and counsel, if any, as well as any Members of Congress who 
have shown interest be advised of the correction and that the Army Board for 
Correction of Military Records be furnished a copy of the correspondence.








	 

	BOARD DATE:  4 April 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20190001299


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions 
(UOTHC) discharge to general.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge) 
*	DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty)
*	Certificates and diplomas supporting his request (criminal justice, high school 
equivalency, ministry, site supervisor, emergency medical technician-ambulance 
(EMT), appreciation, truck driving)

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.  The applicant states he obtained his General Education Development (GED) 
diploma, served as an EMT for 17 years, and he is an ordained minister.  He volunteers 
to help in churches preaching the word of the lord to those in need.  He was having 
marital problems at the time of discharge, but returning to serve the lord he has tried to 
help anyone that he meets to share the word of God.  He does not want any medical 
benefits and has worked hard to make his life better.  He has prayed that one day he 
could have his discharge changed.          

3.  On 10 October 1973, he enlisted in the Regular Army.      

4.  A review of his record shows he was absent without leave (AWOL) for approximately 
115 days.  

5.  On 7 January 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against him for being 
AWOL from 24 August to 17 December 1974.    

6.  On 8 January 1975, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge for the good of 
the service in-lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army 
Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel).  

     a.  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 provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200.  

     b.  He submitted statements in his own behalf and stated in part, he went AWOL 
because of his family problems.  His wife had lost a baby and he was not allowed to go 
home.  He could not adjust to the Army and if he stayed in he would go AWOL again.  
He felt that he would be better off out of the Army.  

     c.  The applicant was medically cleared and his chain of command recommended 
approval of his discharge request with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge 
Certificate. 
	
     d.  The separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge request for the good 
of the service with an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

7.  On 29 January 1975, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  He completed 11 
months and 27 days of net active service.  He had 115 days of lost time.  The applicant 
was not awarded a personal decoration.

8.  In support of his case, the applicant provided certificates of training, ministry, 
appreciation, and diplomas highlighting his numerous achievements after being 
discharged.  

9.  The record contains no indication of procedural or other errors that would tend to 
have jeopardized the applicant’s rights.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 states that, 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.  
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.   

11.  In reaching its determination, the Board should consider the applicant's petition, his 
service record, and his statements in light of the published Department of Defense 
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 and post-service 
achievements 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.  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 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.













:

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 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge 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. 

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 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)	 AR20190001299
	
3

1