ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  8 July 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20190004123


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) 
discharge be upgraded to either an under honorable conditions (general) discharge or 
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), dated 24 February 2019
*	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the 
period ending 6 May 1986

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:

   a.  He enlisted in the Army on 25 August 1983, at 17 years of age.  His military 
occupational specialty was 948 and he spent his duty as a cook in 1st Battalion, 32th 
Infantry Regiment at Fort Campbell, KY.  Soon after he joined, he began drinking and 
was quickly out of control.  Two years and one month later, his drinking and drugging 
ended with a total of five disciplines.  The disciplines included reduction in pay grade to 
E-2 and pay decrease three times and an Article 15.  He was never offered treatment or 
education classes but did go to the Army's hospital and was given Antabuse for six 
months.  In addition, he attended Air Assault School to remain in the service.

   b.  One year into his service, his unit deployed to Egypt; he asked to go with his unit 
but he was found to be non-deployable due to Substance Abuse.  His roommate was 
sent as his replacement.  When his team was returning from deployment in the Sinai 
with the Multinational Force and Observers, their plane refueled in Gander, 
Newfoundland and crashed upon take-off, killing all aboard.  His guilt that his best friend 
was on the plane and he was not haunts him still today.  He separated as other than 
honorable.

   c.  Once he was released from the Army, his drinking and use of drugs continued.  
He entered into two separate 30-day treatment centers in 1986 and 1987.  It was not 
until 1989, when he sought help and entered Alcoholic Anonymous and a sober living 
house called 3rd step program that he was able to put together some days of sobriety.  
He had 5 years of sobriety twice between 1989 and 2001.  On 2 August 2011, he took 
his last drink/drug and he has been sober since that date.  He has been in counseling 
and he works continuously on himself.  He still struggles with guilt and depression and 
he finds himself isolating from time to time.

   d.  In 2002, he was treated for over a year for "Hep C" and was given interferon and 
shots to eradicate it.  In 2010, he had double bypass open heart surgeries and as of 
today, he takes daily medication.  He is seeking to have his discharge upgraded 
because his service was not terminated because he didn't want to or was unwilling to 
stay.  He was discharged as a direct result of his Mental Health/Substance Abuse 
issues.  He would like to receive his full Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits 
because it would assist him with his continued mental health and medical issues.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 January 1990.

4.  The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not available 
for review.  However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 6 May 1986, under 
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted 
Personnel), Chapter 10, for the good of the service – in lieu of trial by court-martial.  His 
DD Form 214 also shows that he had lost time from 5 May 1984 to 14 May 1984 and 
from 7 January 1986 to 19 March 1986.  He completed 2 years, 5 month, and 19 days 
of net active service this period.  His service was characterized as UOTHC.

5.  The issuance of a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, 
chapter 10, required the applicant to have requested from the Army – voluntarily, 
willingly, and in writing – discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  It is presumed that all 
requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully 
protected throughout the separation process.  The applicant has provided no 
information that would indicate the contrary.  Further, it is presumed that the applicant’s 
discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.  

6.  Army Regulation 635-200, in affect at that time, set forth the policies, standards, and 
procedures to insure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the 
orderly administrative separation of enlisted members for a variety of reasons.

7.  The applicant provides supporting letter from two individuals attesting to his good 
character and post service conduct.

8.  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 sufficient 
evidence to grant relief.  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 found the applicant’s statement and 
corroborating statements to be compelling indications of remorse and rehabilitation, 
which partially mitigate the misconduct.  Furthermore, the record is void of any 
indication that the applicant’s chain of command referred him for alcohol abuse 
rehabilitation.  Therefore, the Board found sufficient evidence to warrant an upgrade to 
his discharge characterization to general, under honorable conditions.


BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:X	:X	:X	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:	:	:	DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a 
recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of 
the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending the applicant’s 
discharge characterization on his DD Form 214, ending 6 May 1986, to “General, Under 
Honorable Conditions.”


	  
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 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.

   c.  Chapter 10 states 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.  The request may be 
submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's 
admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge 
under other than honorable conditions would normally be furnished to an individual who 
was discharged for the good of the service.

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.

4.  The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade 
discharges for the purpose of receiving VA benefits.  Each case is decided on its own 
merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted 
if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge 
or both were improper or inequitable.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20190004123

5

1