ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	
	BOARD DATE:  30 April 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20190003017


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  The applicant requests an upgrade of her characterization of 
service from under other than honorable conditions to honorable or general, under 
honorable conditions.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	Certificate of Appreciation from the Superior Court of California, County of Los 
Angeles

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United 
States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of 
Military Records 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 her discharge was inequitable because it was based on one 
isolated incident in 12 months of service with no other adverse actions.  Additionally, 
she states it has been more than 30 years since she was discharged from the military 
and she has since worked for the Los Angeles Superior Court, Los Angeles CA, for 
more than 20 years as a law abiding citizen.  

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 April 1985 for 4 years.  She held 
military occupational specialty 75D (Personnel Records Specialist).  She was assigned 
to Germany from 27 August 1985 to 25 June 1986.

4.  The complete facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not 
available for review with this case.  However, her record contains a: 

      a.  A Memorandum, 2nd Endorsement, from Department of the Army, 130th 
Engineer Brigade,  subject:  Recommendation for Elimination Under the Provisions of 
Chapter 14-12c and (d), Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – 
Enlisted Personnel), dated 23 April 1986 where the intermediate commander 
recommends approval of the separation and a waiver of rehabilitative transfer.  The 
applicant requested that her case not be considered by a board of officers and based on 
the fact that the applicant has been convicted of various acts of misconduct and 
indiscipline, she should be discharged as provided in paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, 
for commission of serious offenses. 

      b.  3rd Endorsement, from DA Headquarters, 3rd Armored Division, subject:  
Recommendation for Elimination Under the Provisions of Chapter 14-12c, AR 635-200, 
dated 12 June 1986 is signed the by approval authority and provides the separation was 
approved and directed the applicant’s discharge from the service under the provisions 
of paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct with the issuance of an under other 
than honorable conditions discharge.  

      c.  Orders 155-61, issued by DA 574th Personnel Service Company APO New York 
09165, on 17 June 1986, reassigning her to the separation transfer point for separation 
processing with a reporting date of 30 June 1986. 

      d.  Orders 177-237, issued by Headquarters U.S. Army Training Center, Fort Dix, 
NJ, showing she was discharged from the RA, effective 26 June 1986.

5.  On 26 June 1986 she was discharged accordingly.  Her DD Form 214 (Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows she was discharged in accordance with 
Chapter 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct - abuse of illegal drugs.  She 
was credited with completing 1 year, 2 months, and 11 days of active service. 

6.  The applicant provides a Certificate of Appreciation that shows she completed 
20 years of dedicated distinguished service with the Los Angeles Superior Court, Los 
Angles CA.

7.  AR 635-200, prescribes separation for commission of a serious offense.  Paragraph 
14-12c states that abuse of illegal drugs is serious misconduct.  

8.  The applicant requests her discharge be upgraded because her separation was 
based on one isolated incident.  Her record is void of specific details; however, the 
available evidence in her records shows she has various acts of misconduct.  In 
reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition and his 
service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency guidance. 



BOARD DISCUSSION:

After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined there is 
insufficient evidence to grant relief.  The applicant’s contentions and certificate of 
achievement were carefully considered.  The Board applied Department of Defense 
standards of liberal consideration to the complete evidentiary record and did not find 
any evidence of error, injustice, or inequity.  She did not provide character witness 
statements for the Board to consider.  The applicant mentioned one event of 
misconduct when the records shows a pattern of misconduct.  Based upon the record, 
the Board agreed that the applicant's discharge characterization was warranted as a 
result of the 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.


	  
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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records 
(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.  AR 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 
Chapter 14 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, and convictions by civil authorities.  
Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it was 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. 

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a states 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 states 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. 

3.  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.  

     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 based on 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.  

     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//

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20190003017

4

1