ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:  22 July 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20190004081


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 self-authored statement dated  
4 March 2019
*	DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of 
the United States), with self-authored statement dated 4 March 2019

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 she should not have been discharged due to misconduct; she 
should have been punished for her actions and forced to continue her term.  She was 
given up on too easily at the time.  She was 18 years old, young, naive, and she made 
poor decisions.  She should have made a career of the military for her family and 
herself.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 November 1996.

4.  The applicant was counseled on at least eight separate occasions between 
20 March 1997 and 17 June 1997.  Her DA Forms 4856 (General Counseling Forms) 
show she was counseled for offenses including but not limited to:

*	failure to meet and maintain company standards of living
*	failure to go at the prescribed time to her appointed place of duty
*	failure to obtain the minimum requirements for the physical fitness test
*	failure to obey lawful orders from a noncommissioned officer (NCO)
*	failure to follow instructions
*	making a statement of an offensive nature

5.  The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 26 June 1997, under the 
provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for offenses 
including but not limited to:

*	failure to go to her appointed place of duty (on three occasions)
*	willfully disobeying a lawful order (on three occasions)
*	being disrespectful in language toward an NCO

6.  The applicant was counseled on 11 July 1997, for committing an indecent act with 
another Soldier and violating company policy, and on 2 September 1997, for failure to 
go at the prescribed time to her appointed place of duty.

7.  The applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial on or about 4 September 
1997, at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland, of four specifications of being absent 
from her place of duty and of three specifications of disobeying a lawful order.

8.  The applicant's commander notified the applicant on 15 September 1997 of his intent 
to initiate actions to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 
(Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of 
misconduct.  The applicant's commander cited her numerous records of counseling and 
her record of NJP as the basis for his recommendation.  The applicant acknowledged 
receipt of the notification.  She consulted with counsel and she elected not to submit a 
statement in her own behalf.

9.  The applicant's commander formally recommended her separation from service on 
19 September 1997, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,  
paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct.  The separation authority approved the 
recommendation for discharge on 23 September 1997 and directed that the applicant 
receive a General Discharge Certificate.

10.  The applicant was discharged on 1 October 1997, under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct – a pattern of misconduct.  Her 
DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) confirms she 
completed 9 months and 27 days of net active service this period and her service was 
characterized as under honorable conditions (general).

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the 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.


12.  The Board should consider the applicant's 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 considered the applicant’s statement, her overall record 
of service, the frequency and nature of her misconduct and whether to apply clemency.  
The Board found insufficient in-service mitigation for her misconduct and the applicant 
provided no evidence of post-service accomplishments or letters of reference in support 
of clemency.  Based on the preponderance of evidence, the Board determined 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 found 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 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 states 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 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members 
for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions (a pattern of 
misconduct consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions), a pattern of 
misconduct (consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or 
conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline), commission of a serious offense 
(including drug abuse), and convictions by civil authorities.  Action will be taken to 
separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is 
impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.

	c.  Paragraph 14-3 states a discharge under other than honorable conditions is 
normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  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 
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)	 AR20190004081

4

1