ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Record of Proceedings


IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 13 December 2019 
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190002368

APPLICANT 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 11 January 2019
*	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the 
period ending 3 August 1984


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:

   a.	He truly believes and completely knows that several injustices were committed 
upon him between 6 December 1994 and 5 April 1996. The injustices occurred from 
the date he was discharged from the mental ward at William Beaumont Army Medical 
Center for his suicidal thoughts and attempted suicide, until the date of his eventual 
misconduct discharge. He documented the treatment that he endured by his chain of 
command, including his squad leader, platoon sergeant, platoon leader, first sergeant 
and everyone else that was placed over him, which resulted in three Articles 15.

   b.	His squad leader and his platoon sergeant threatened to have him kicked out of 
the Army; he had two rank reductions within three weeks, which were documented in 
the "NOD" that he submitted to the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Bureau of 
Veterans Affairs on 23 February 2006. The threats against him were regarding the 
treatment he received after telling his chain of command he forgave his wife and a 
fellow Soldier for their adultery.
   



3.	Following a brief period of U.S. Army Reserve service, the applicant enlisted in the 
Regular Army on 2 October 1991. He served in the Federal Republic of Germany from 
on or about 28 October 1991 through on or about 28 October 1993.  Following his 
return to the continental U.S., he was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 43rd Air Defense 
Artillery Regiment, Fort Bliss, TX.  He deployed to Saudi Arabia from on or about
24 April through on or about 25 August 1994.

4.	The applicant was counseled on 6 March 1995. His DA Form 4856 shows he was 
instructed to go to the motor pool on 5 March 1995, along with another Soldier, to work 
on inputting information into the new computer. When he found that a lock had been 
placed on the office door, he failed to inform his chain of command about the situation 
and he took it upon himself to take the morning off. The applicant was informed that he 
was being recommending for a punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

5.	The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 16 March 1995, under the 
provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, for being derelict in the performance of his duties 
on or about 5 March 1995, in that he willfully failed to inform his chain of command of 
the situation at Echo Battery Motor Pool Office.

6.	The applicant was counseled on 8 September 1995. His DA Form 4856 shows he 
failed to be at his appointed place of duty at 1300 hours on 7 September 1995. His 
continued unsatisfactory performance and/or misconduct would result in his being 
administratively separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635- 
200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapters 5, 13, or 14.

7.	The applicant accepted NJP on 11 September 1995, for being absent without leave 
(AWOL) from on or about 22 August until on or about 23 August 1995. His
DA Form 2627 shows he made an election to appeal and to submit additional matters. 
The additional matters are not available. However, his DA Form 2627 shows that the 
Judge Advocate determined the proceedings were conducted in accordance with law 
and regulation and the punishments imposed were not unjust or disproportionate to the 
offense committed. After consideration of all matters presented in appeal, the appeal 
was denied.

8.	The applicant was counseled on 7 December 1995, after having positive urinalysis 
results for an illegal drug. He was told that he was in direct violation of the U.S. Army's 
drug and alcohol policy, the battalion's policy, and the battery's policy. In accordance 
with the battalion commander's policy, he would receive a field grade Article 15 and any 
other UCMJ action the battalion commander deemed necessary. He would be enrolled 
in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Control Program, his personnel files would 
be flagged, a Bar to Reenlistment would be annotated in his files, and his security 
clearance would be revoked.




9.	The applicant accepted NJP on 6 January 1996, under the provision of Article 15 of 
the UCMJ, for wrongfully using marijuana, a controlled substance, between the dates of 
2 September and 2 October 1995.

10.	The applicant was counseled on 12 March 1996, regarding his administrative 
separation under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14. He was told that the purpose 
of the counseling was to inform him that his continued unsatisfactory performance 
and/or misconduct could result in his being administratively separated from the Army. 
He was also informed of the types of discharges and the benefits he could receive.

11.	The applicant's commander notified the applicant on 13 March 1996 that he was 
being recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, 
paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct – commission of a serious offense. After consulting 
with counsel on 14 March 1996, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification 
and he waived his right to have his case considered before an administrative separation 
board.

12.	The applicant's commander formally recommended the applicant's separation 
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct. 
The separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 27 March 
1996 and directed that the applicant be given an under honorable conditions 
characterization of service.

13.	The applicant was discharged on 5 April 1996, under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2), for misconduct – commission of a serious 
offense. He completed 4 years, 6 months, and 4 days of net active service this period. 
His DD form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) confirms his 
service was characterized as under honorable conditions (general).

14.	Army Regulation 635-200 sets policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the 
readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative 
separation of Soldiers for a variety of reasons.

15.	The Board should consider the applicant's provided statement 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 and published DoD policy 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.  The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service




mitigating factors for the misconduct, and 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 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 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 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.	Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members 
for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions (a pattern of 
misconduct consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions), a pattern of 
misconduct (consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or 
conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline), commission of a serious offense, and 
convictions by civil authorities. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct 
when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A 
discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier 
discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general 
discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record.

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.
//NOTHING FOLLOWS//