ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD 
OF PROCEEDINGS 
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE:  14 June 2019 
DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20190002835 
APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Her 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), with a self-authored statement dated 2 
February 2019
•	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the 
period ending 9 July 1996
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, in effect:
   a.	Since her discharge, she has been an exemplary citizen.  She has always 
been
employed, raised her daughter by herself, and put her through school.  She has 
acquired several health and nutritional certificates and started her own business.  She 
participates with and supports several nonprofit veteran organizations. 
   b.	When she was presented with her discharge paperwork, she was 
blindsided. She believes she was not given the opportunity to defend herself 
properly.  She was not in the best state of mind to make important decisions, 
because she was depressed, suffered from anxiety, and was 5 months pregnant.  
She was being manipulated and was physically and mentally abused by her 
husband at the time. 
   c.	She feels as if she is being punished for her ex-husband's actions.  If she 
knew then that her marriage was going to cost her Army career, she would have 
chosen the Army.  She attempted to fight the discharge but was refused and she 
felt abandoned by everyone.       
3.	The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 August 1994.
4.	The applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) on 10 April 1996, under the 
provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for 
wrongfully damaging another Soldier’s private property on or about 26 February 
1996.  Her sentence included her reduction to the rank/grade of private/E-1 and a 
suspended forfeiture of pay, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 7 
October 1996.  The vacated forfeiture of pay was suspended on 10 April 1996, due 
to her failing to obey a lawful order by allowing her spouse to live in her government 
quarters [while he was barred from the installation].
5.	The applicant’s service record show she was counseled on several occasions, for 
the following offenses:
•	on 12 April 1996, for assault consummated by battery on 19 February 1996, 
when she struck another Soldier in the face with a closed fist
•	on 6 May 1996, for being arrested by the military police on 5 May 1996 for 
knowingly failing to obey a lawful order or regulation, by having [her spouse] 
living in her quarters, which was against his bar from the installation
6.	The applicant’s service record contain a DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status 
Evaluation) that shows she received a command-directed mental status evaluation 
on 10 May 1996.  The evaluation showed:
•	no evidence of an emotional or mental disorder of psychiatric significance or of 
sufficient severity to warrant disposition through medical channels
•	she was mentally responsible for her behavior, could distinguish right from 
wrong, and possesses sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative 
or judicial proceedings
•	she reported a strong desire to remain active duty and was motivated to 
rehabilitate as directed by Command
•	was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by Command
7.	The applicant’s service record show she was counseled on several other occasions, 
for the following offenses:
•	on 15 May 1996, for being arrested for allowing another Soldier to operate her 
vehicle without a U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR) driver's license, on or about 11 
May 1996
•	on 24 May 1996, for missing formation on 24 May 1996
8.	The applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate 
actions to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel 
Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b, by reason of the number of 
serious offenses in recent months [pattern of misconduct] for which she made no 
attempt to correct the problem.
9.	The applicant consulted with counsel on 17 June 1996 and was advised of the basis 
for the contemplated actions to separate her under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, and its effect; of the rights available to her; and of 
the effect of any action taken by her to waive her rights.  She acknowledged she 
may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if she received a general 
discharge.  She submitted the following statement in her own behalf.
   a.	She requested the separation actions pending against her be disapproved 
and
that she be permitted to continue serving in the Army. 
   b.	She requested she receive a rehabilitative transfer; she quoted Army 
Regulation 635-200 and cited the requirement that she be reassigned at least once 
before being separated under paragraph 14-12b.
   c.	She requested she receive an honorable discharge because the circumstances 
of her alleged misconduct, which lead to her discharge, were not the type of conduct 
that required she receive a general discharge.  She pointed out that the Soldier she 
was accused of assaulting was having an affair with her husband.  Her husband was 
barred from post.  When she learned of the affair between [the alleged victim] and her 
husband, she had also just learned that she was pregnant. 
   d.	Since her husband and the [alleged victim] were both no longer in Germany, she 
felt, if given a chance, she could Soldier her way out of the situation.  She liked the 
Army and her MOS.  She felt that she could contribute to her unit.  She needed the 
Army to provide for her unborn child because she was five-months pregnant.  The Army 
was her only source of health care and she didn’t know how she would afford the cost 
of the childbirth.  She needed an honorable discharge to be able to better provide for 
her unborn child if she was put out of the Army. 
10.	The applicant's commander formally recommended that she be separated under the 
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, by reason of her pattern of 
misconduct.  He cited, as the specific reason for his recommendation, the 
applicant's numerous offenses in recent months and her lack of an attempt at 
correcting the problem.
11.	The applicant's intermediate commander recommended approval of her separation 
and recommended she receive a General Discharge Certificate and be transferred 
to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).  He also recommended rehabilitation 
requirements be waived.
12.	Consistent with the chain of command recommendations, the separation authority 
approved the applicant's discharge on 26 June 1996, under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12(b) (patterns of misconduct), and directed that 
she be issued a General Discharge Certificate and be transferred to the IRR.
13.	The applicant was discharged on 9 July 1996.  The DD Form 214 she was issued 
confirms she was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, 
paragraph 14-12b, by reason of "Misconduct – Patterns of Misconduct."  Her service 
was characterized as under honorable conditions (general).
14.	The applicant’s application shows she submitted medical records, 
certifications,character letters, and employment timeline in support of her 
application, however none of these documents accompanied her application.
15.	The Board should consider the applicant's overall service record and 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 guidance for consideration of discharge 
upgrade requests.  The Board discussed the applicant’s statement, the frequency and 
nature of her misconduct, her separation evaluation and whether to apply clemency in 
this case.  The Board determined that there were insufficient mitigating factors to 
overcome the applicant’s pattern of misconduct and that the character of service she 
received at separation was not in error or unjust.
2.	After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board 
determined 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. 
 
CHAIRPERSON Signed by: 

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):  N/A 


 
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) 
 
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.	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.   
 
c.	Chapter 14 of this regulation establishes policy and prescribes procedures 
for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor 
disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, 
conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absences without leave.  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 considered appropriate.  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 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) 
         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. 
 
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) 	 AR20190002835 
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) 	 AR20190002835 
1 
5 

1 
 AR20190002835 
 AR20190002835 
1 
7 
 AR20190002835 
1