ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	I	BOARD DATE:  9 July 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20190003230


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, an upgrade of his characterization of service from 
under other than honorable conditions to honorable.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	DD Form 214 (Report of Separation 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.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the 
previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of 
Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20090007257 on 15 September 2009.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, he entered the Army at age 17 when he was very 
rebellious.  He was hoping the Army would help point him in the right direction.  Since 
being discharged he has become an outstanding citizen and he wants a better life.  The 
infractions on his record are keeping him from advancing and reaching his potential.

4.  On 4 January 1977, at age 17, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years 
with parental consent.  He held military occupational specialty 94B (Food Service 
Specialist).

5.  The above ABCMR Record of Proceedings shows, on 7 February 1977, nonjudicial 
punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for willfully disobeying a lawful 
order to secure his locker.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, extra duty, 
and restriction.  The NJP record of proceedings are no longer in the available record.


6.  A Report of Medical Examination, dated 13 March 1978, shows the applicant was 
determined to be qualified for separation.  

7.  On 16 March 1978, the applicant was notified that charges were being preferred 
against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 8 through 14 November 1977, 
21 through 23 November 1977, and 30 December 1977 through 12 March 1978.

8.  On 17 March 1978, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and he was advised of 
the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad 
conduct or dishonorable discharge, the possible effects of a request for discharge, and 
the procedures and rights available to him.  Following consultation with legal counsel, 
he requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under 
the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – 
Enlisted Personnel).  He declined to submit statements in his own behalf.

      a.  His immediate and intermediate commanders recommended approval of the 
applicant’s request for discharge.

      b.  On 28 March 1978, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for 
discharge.

9.  Accordingly, on 13 April 1978, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of 
chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He 
had completed 1 year and 19 days of total active service with 80 days of lost time due to 
being AWOL.

10.  Chapter 10, AR 635-200 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has 
committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive 
discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by 
court-martial.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge 
under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 

11.  His characterization of service was in compliance with the governing regulation.  

12.  The applicant contends, in effect, his discharge should be upgraded, because he 
entered the Army at age 17, young, rebellious, and hoping the Army would help point 
him in the right direction.  Since being discharged he has become an outstanding citizen 
and he wants a better life; but the infractions on his record are keeping him from 
advancing and reaching his potential.

13.  Regarding the applicant’s contention that he was young, there is no evidence that 
indicates he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully 
completed their military service obligation. 

14.  He completed 1 year and 19 days of his 3 year service obligation.  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. 

15.  The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade 
of his discharge.  On 16 August 1985, the ADRB denied his request.

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 considered the applicant’s statement, overall record of 
service, the frequency and nature of the misconduct and whether to apply clemency.  
The Board found insufficient mitigation in the records and that the applicant provided no 
post-service references or accomplishments to support a clemency determination.  The 
Board determined that there was insufficient evidence to overcome the misconduct and 
that the character of service the applicant received 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.
 


	  
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 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has 
committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a 
punitive discharge may, at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a 
request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Although 
an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable 
conditions is normally considered appropriate. 

      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.  
A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason 
for the Soldier's separation specifically allows such characterization.

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. 



ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20190003230

4

1