ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


IN THE CASE OF: 
BOARD DATE: 20 June 2019 
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190002079

APPLICANT REQUESTS: upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions 
discharge to general under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

   *	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
   *	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 
FACTS:
1.	The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10 (Armed 
Forces), United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b) (Correction of Military Records: 
Claims Incident Thereto). 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 he is requesting this upgrade so he can qualify for Department 
of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits.

   a.	In April 1986, his brother was shot in his hometown; it was unclear if he would 
survive. The applicant requested, and was granted emergency leave. When he 
returned home, he began going through very serious marital issues; the combination of 
his brother's situation and his marital problems caused him a great amount of stress. 
He contends he lost track of time until he was arrested by the military police.

   b.	At the time of his discharge, they gave him no option apart from jail or discharge; 
he hopes the Board will consider he was young and naive.  He has since gone through 
a lot of rehabilitations, and he regrets the choices he made.

3.	The applicant's service records show:

   a.	He enlisted into the Regular Army on 22 May 1985 for a 3-year term; he was
22 years of age. Following initial training, orders assigned him to Germany; he arrived 
on or about 1 October 1985.



   b.	On 8 January 1986, he extended his 3-year enlistment by 5 months to obtain 
command sponsorship eligibility for his dependent. Effective 1 April 1986, his 
leadership promoted him to private first class (PFC)/E-3.

   c.	On 30 April 1986, after being hospitalized for a surgical procedure, his chain of 
command placed him on convalescent leave. On 16 May 1986, his unit reported him 
absent without leave (AWOL) and, effective 15 June 1986, dropped him from Army rolls.

   d.	On 18 August 1986, civilian authority arrested the applicant in Columbus, IN; 
orders reassigned him to the U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility (PCF) at Fort Knox, 
KY.

   e.	On 22 August 1986, his PCF commander preferred court-martial charges against 
him for AWOL from 16 May until 18 August 1986 (94 days). That same date, the 
applicant signed a memorandum affirming, although the government had not received 
the necessary documentation and/or records with which to obtain a court-martial 
conviction, he nonetheless affirmed his AWOL period.

   f.	On 25 August 1986, after consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily 
requested discharge for the good of the service, in-lieu of trial by court-martial, under 
chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service), Army Regulation (AR)
635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). In his request, he affirmed no 
one subjected him to coercion and counsel had advised him of the implications of his 
request. He also acknowledged he was guilty of the charge. He elected not to submit a 
statement in his own behalf.

   g.	On 3 September 1986, the separation authority approved the applicant's request 
and directed his discharge under other than honorable conditions; he also directed the 
applicant's reduction to private/E-1. On 29 September 1986, he was discharged 
accordingly. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 
shows he completed 1 year, 1 month, and 6 days of his 3-year and 5 month term. He 
was awarded or authorized the Army Service Ribbon and a marksmanship qualification 
badge.

4.	The applicant is requesting an upgraded character of service for VA eligibility; at the 
time of his separation, he was young and naive, but has since gone through 
rehabilitation and, in effect, regrets having gone AWOL.

5.	During his active duty service, the applicant was AWOL for more than 30 days; per 
the Manual for Courts-Martial in effect at the time, the maximum punishment for this 
offense included a punitive discharge. Soldiers charged with UCMJ violations, for which 
a punitive discharge was a punishment, could request separation under chapter 10,
AR 635-200; such requests were voluntary and offered in-lieu of trial by court-martial.
In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, his service



record, and his statements in light of the published 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 board applied Office of the Secretary of 
Defense standards for consideration of discharge upgrade requests 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 insufficient evidence of mitigating circumstances for the serious 
misconduct. The applicant stated that he went AWOL because his brother was shot 
but there is no corroborating evidence to support this; he provided not 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 
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.




X  




 

CHAIRPERSON
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 3 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 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the 
interest of justice to do so.

2.	AR 635-200, in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for the 
administrative separation of enlisted personnel.

   a.	Paragraph 3-7a (Honorable Discharge) stated an honorable discharge was a 
separation with honor. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the 
quality of the Soldier's service generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and 
duty performance.

   b.	Paragraph 3-7b (General Discharge). A general discharge was a separation 
under honorable conditions, and applied to those Soldiers whose military record was 
satisfactory, but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

   c.	Chapter 10 applied to Soldiers who had committed an offense or offenses for 
which the punishment under the UCMJ included a punitive (i.e. bad conduct or 
dishonorable) discharge.  Soldiers could voluntarily request discharge once charges 
had been preferred; commanders were responsible for ensuring such requests were 
personal decisions, made without coercion, and following being granted access to 
counsel. The Soldier was to be given a reasonable amount of time to consult with 
counsel prior to making his/her decision. The Soldier was required to make his/her 
request in writing, which certified he/she had been counseled, understood his/her rights, 
could receive an under other than honorable conditions character of service, and 
recognized the adverse nature of such a character of service.  Consulting counsel was 
to sign the request as a witness.

3.	The Manual for Courts-Martial, United States 1969 (Revised Edition), Table of 
Maximum Punishments showed Article 86 (AWOL for more than 30 days) included a 
dishonorable discharge.

4.	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. 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. 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//