ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


IN THE CASE OF: 
BOARD DATE: 20 June 2019 
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190002299

APPLICANT REQUESTS: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be 
upgraded to an honorable discharge.

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)

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 was told he could upgrade his discharge after he got out. He 
would like to do so at this time.

3.	The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 April 1984.

4.	By memorandum dated 20 November 1985, the applicant's commander denied the 
applicant's award of the Army Good Conduct Medal, due to the fact that the applicant 
was pending administrative separation from the Army.

5.	The applicant's record is void of documentation related to his separation processing; 
however, his record contains a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from 
Active Duty) that shows he was discharged on 22 November 1985, under the provisions 
of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel),
paragraph 7-17b, by reason of fraudulent entry. His DD Form 214 shows he was 
discharged in the rank/grade of specialist four (SP4)/E-4 and his service was 
characterized as under honorable conditions.

6.	There has never been a provision of regulation or law that provided for the automatic 
upgrade of less than honorable discharges after the passage of time.





7.	The Board may consider the applicant's statement and his overall service 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 applicant had no wartime service, no meritorious 
personal awards and insufficient evidence of mitigating circumstances related to his 
separation. The Board found limited evidence of remorse or post-service honorable 
conduct that might have mitigated the discharge characterization. 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 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 7-17b(1) provides that a Soldier may be discharged for the 
concealment of a period of prior service. Characterization of service will normally be 
under other than honorable conditions if the fraud involves concealment of a prior 
separation in which service was not characterized as honorable.

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.

   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//