ARMY BOARD FOR CRRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Record of Proceedings


IN THE CASE OF: 
BOARD DATE:  10 June 2019
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190003086


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), dated 28 November 2018
*	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the 
period ending on or about 14 May 1987

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 that at the time of his discharge, he was going through a 
divorce. He attempted to go through his chain of command to request his cumulative 
leave to return home to handle his personal business. Upgrading his discharge will 
improve his employment opportunities and quality of life.

3.	The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 September 1983.

4.	The applicant was counseled on or about 23 September 1984 for disobeying a lawful 
order to gather his military and personal items and to move into the barracks.

5.	The applicant was counseled on 11 August 1985 for being picked-up by the military 
police on charges of hit and run, failure to report an accident, and leaving the scene of 
an accident.

6.	The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 31 August 1985, under the 
provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for fleeing the 
scene of an accident without making his identity known.


7.	The applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army on 24 March 1986.

8.	The applicant was counseled on or about 27 January 1987 for not cleaning up his 
common area as he was instructed to do by his platoon sergeant.

9.	The applicant was counseled on 10 March 1987 for failure to be at formation. He 
was counseled again on 10 March 1987 for disobeying and being disrespectful to an 
officer's request for him to sit up in his chair during a briefing. His commander noted it 
was the applicant's second violation since he arrived one month earlier. He was told 
that one more deviation of any sort would result in severe punishment.

10.	The applicant accepted NJP on 14 April 1987, under the provisions of Article 15 of 
the UCMJ, for driving a passenger car while under the influence of alcohol.

11.	The applicant's commander notified the applicant on 19 April 1987 that he was 
initiating actions to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 
(Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 13, for unsatisfactory 
performance. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and elected not to 
submit a statement in his own behalf.

12.	The applicant's commander formally recommended his separation from service 
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, by reason of 
unsatisfactory performance. The separation authority approved the recommendation for 
discharge on 29 April 1987 and directed the issuance of a General Discharge 
Certificate.

13.	The applicant was discharged on 14 May 1987, under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. His DD Form 214 
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:

After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined there is 
insufficient evidence to grant relief, other than the administrative notes found by the 
analyst of record below the signature block. The Board applied Office of the Secretary 
of Defense standards of liberal consideration and clemency to the complete evidentiary 
record, including the applicant’s statement and did not find evidence of error, injustice,


or inequity; although the applicant had a period of creditable honorable service (noted in 
administrative notes below the signature block), there was insufficient evidence of 
mitigating circumstances for the misconduct. Neither did the Board find sufficient 
evidence of post-service honorable conduct that might have mitigated the discharge 
characterization. The Board agreed 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:

Other than the administrative notes annotated by the Analyst of Record (below the 
signature), the Board determined 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 otherwise 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):


A review of the applicant's record shows his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty), for the period ending on or about 14 May 1987, is missing 
important entries that affect his eligibility for post-service benefits. As a result, amend 
the DD Form 214 by adding the following entries to item 18 (Remarks):

   *	SOLDIER HAS COMPLETED FIRST FULL TERM OF SERVICE
   *	CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 830902 UNTIL 860323 
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 13 of this regulation provides for separation due to unsatisfactory 
performance when in the commander’s judgment the individual will not become a 
satisfactory Soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order 
and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for 
separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform 
effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely. 
Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation 
will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

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//