ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


IN THE CASE OF: 
BOARD DATE:  8 July 2019
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190003166


APPLICANT REQUESTS: Upgrade of her general discharge to a fully honorable 
discharge.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the 
Armed Forces of the United States)
   *	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 
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 she was discharged from the military 1 week before her 
enlistment was to officially end. Due to complications with her pregnancy, she was told 
she could get out early and receive all of her benefits, which was not true. The 
pregnancy also caused her to go to sick call and be late to formation at times. She was 
age 21 at the time and she was not aware that getting out early with a general 
discharge, under honorable conditions would deny her full benefits. If, she known she 
would have completed her last week of service. She also lists the awards that she 
received.

3.	On 2 October 1991, at age 18, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 2 years 
and 22 weeks. She held military occupational specialty (MOS) 91B (Medical Specialist). 
On 11 March 1992, she was assigned to Fort Carson, CO, with duties in her MOS.



4.	Her official record contains four nonjudicial punishments (NJP) for the following 
reasons:

   a.	Undated and unsigned, for failing to go to her appointed place of duty at the 
prescribed time between 19 and 26 January 1993. Her punishment included a forfeiture 
of pay and extra duty.

   b.	Undated and unsigned, for failing to go to her appointed place of duty at the time 
prescribed on or about 23 February 1993 [twice] and for making a false statement (that 
the staff sergeant gave her time off). Her punishment included reduction to pay grade 
E-2, a forfeiture of pay (suspended), and extra duty.

   c.	Dated 15 July 1993, for failure to go to her appointed place of duty at the time 
prescribed on 14 July 1993.  Her punishment included extra duty and restriction.

   d.	Dated 4 October 1993, for failing to go to her appointed place of duty at the time 
prescribed on or about 29 August 1993. Her punishment included reduction to pay 
grade E-2, a forfeiture of pay, extra duty, and restriction.

5.	General Counseling Forms, dated between 29 June and 17 December 1993, 
confirms, the applicant was counseled eleven times for various reasons to include: 
Failing to make it to the first formation (three times) and failing to call in; failing to make 
it to the second formation and failing to call in; failing to report for duty; failing to make it 
to an appointment; failing to go to her appointed place of duty; her duty performance 
and misconduct; and the last four NJP’s she received for speeding, having no license in 
her possession, no proof of insurance; and for discharge proceedings.

6.	A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 November 1993, confirms the 
applicant was cleared for administrative action deemed appropriate by her chain of 
command.

7.	A Report of Medical Examination confirms the applicant was qualified for separation. 
This document also shows she was pregnant.

8.	On 31 January 1994, the applicant’s immediate commander notified the applicant of 
his intent to initiate separation action against her in accordance with chapter 13, Army 
Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) by reason of unsatisfactory performance. 
The specific reasons cited are the applicant’s failure to obey a direct order and 
numerous incidents of failure to report to her appointed place of duty. Her commander 
recommended that additional rehabilitative requirements be waived and that she be 
issued a general discharge.

9.	The applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's notification to separate her 
and she consulted with legal counsel. She was advised of the basis for the 
contemplated separation for unsatisfactory performance, the type of discharge she



could receive, the possible effects of this discharge, and of the procedures/rights that 
were available to her.

10.	The applicant’s immediate commander initiated separation action against her in 
accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of unsatisfactory performance. 
The immediate commander recommended the issuance of a general discharge.

11.	On 9 February 1994, the separation authority approved the separation action and 
ordered the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 by 
reason of unsatisfactory performance and directed she be furnished a General 
Discharge Certificate.

12.	On 17 February 1994, at age 21, she was discharged accordingly. She completed 
a total of 2 years, 4 months, and 16 days of creditable active military service. Her DD 
Form 214 also shows she was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, National Defense 
Service Medal, and Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge Rifle (M-16).

13.	On 17 February 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s 
request for an upgrade of her characterization of service.

14.	Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted 
personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating 
individuals for unsatisfactory performance and provides, in pertinent part, that 
commanders will separate a member under this chapter when in the commander’s 
judgment the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further 
training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.

15.	The applicant contends she was discharged from the military 1 week before her 
enlistment obligation officially ended. Due to complications with her pregnancy, she 
was told she could get out early and receive all of her benefits, which she found to be 
untrue. The pregnancy also caused her to go to sick call and be late to formation at 
times. She was age 21 at the time and she was not aware that getting out early with a 
general discharge would deny her full benefits. If, she had known she would have 
completed her last week of service.  The available evidence shows:

    a.	She was discharged due to unsatisfactory performance, specifically, for failure 
to obey a direct order and numerous incidents of failure to report to her appointed place 
of duty; and

    b.	Completed 2 years, 4 months, and 17 days of her 2 year and 22 week service 
obligation, which means she had 5 and a half weeks left.

16.	In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition, 
pregnancy, age, her service obligation completed and her 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 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 found insufficient evidence 
of error, injustice, or inequity; the applicant had no wartime service and insufficient 
evidence of mitigating circumstances for the numerous incidents of misconduct. The 
applicant provided no evidence of post-service achievements or letters of reference in 
support of a clemency determination. The applicant states that she was unaware that 
being separated prior to her ETS would result in a decrease in benefits; the evidence 
includes her signed acknowledgement of separation for unsatisfactory performance 
and the consequences of such an action.   Based on a preponderance of evidence, 
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:

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.


12/17/2019

 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 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.	Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted 
personnel.  It provides:



   a.	Chapter 13 is for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance and 
provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter 
when in the commander’s judgment the member will not develop sufficiently to 
participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.

   b.	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.

4.	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//