ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE CASE OF: 
BOARD DATE:	20 June 2019 
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190002294

APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty), for the period ending 25 October 1996, to show:

   a.	his service was characterized as "honorable" instead of "dishonorable";

b.	his reentry code (RE code) as "RE-1" instead of "RE-4";

   c.	his separation code as something more favorable, in line with an upgraded 
discharge, instead of what's currently shown; and

   d.	his narrative reason for separation as "Convenience of the Government" instead 
of "As a result of court-martial – other."

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 2 January 2019
*	DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of 
the United States), dated 2 January 2019

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 he has worked hard for a long time without using his military 
background but now he is unable to work and is homeless. He wishes to better himself. 
He is tired of being a displaced person.

3.	The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 September 1992.



4.	The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 17 February 1994, under 
the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failing to 
go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty, on or about 1 February 1994.

5.	Before a general court-martial on or about 31 July 1995, at Fort Hood, Texas, the 
applicant was convicted of conspiracy to commit armed robbery (two specifications), 
armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, and kidnapping. He was sentenced to 
confinement for 14 years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and separation from 
service with a dishonorable discharge.

6.	The court-martial convening authority approved the sentence on 16 October 1995, 
and, except for the part of the sentence extending to a dishonorable discharge, ordered 
the sentence to be executed. The court-martial convening authority further directed the 
period of confinement in excess of 10 years be suspended for 2 year and the applicant 
be credited with 117 days of confinement against the sentence to confinement. The 
record of trial was forwarded to the U.S. Army Court of Military Review for appellate 
review.

7.	The U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings of guilty and the 
approved sentence on 29 February 1996.

8.	The applicant apparently did not appeal and, on 27 August 1996, Article 71(c) of the 
UCMJ having been complied with, the court-martial convening authority ordered the 
dishonorable discharge duly executed.

9.	The applicant was dishonorably discharged on 1 August 1986, under the provisions 
of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 3, 
by reason of his court-martial conviction. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he 
was discharged in the rank/grade of private/E-1.

10.	The Board may consider the applicant's homeless status and request for relief to 
better himself 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 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 Board found insufficient evidence of in-service 
mitigation to overcome the serious misconduct and other thatn his statement, the 
applicant provided no evidence of post-service achievements or letters of reference 
in support of a clemency determination.  Based on a preponderance of evidence, 
the Board found that the applicant’s discharge characterization properly reflects the 
seriousness of his 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.





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 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.

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. 
A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason 
for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

   c.	Paragraph 3-11 provides that a Soldier will be given a DD only pursuant to an 
approved sentence of a general special court-martial. The appellate review must be 
completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed.

4.	Court-Martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the 
judicial process. In accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552, the authority 
under which this Board acts, the ABCMR is not empowered to set aside a conviction. 
Rather it is only empowered to change the severity of the sentence imposed in the 
court-martial process and then only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. 
Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the 
punishment imposed.

5.	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.

   a.	Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. 
BCM/NRs 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.

   b.	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.

   c.	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//