IN THE CASE OF:

BOARD DATE:  22 July 2019

DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20190004253


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  The applicant requests his service characterization of under 
honorable conditions (general) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)

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 he was told his discharge would be changed to honorable after 
one year of his discharge.

3.  On 26 November 1991, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for three years at 
the age of 18.

4.  On 19 August 1992, he received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for being 
disrespectful to his supervisor, a noncommissioned officer (NCO).

5.  On 30 July 1993, he received NJP for being failing to be at his appointed place of 
duty from on or about 1000 hours, 29 June 1993 to on or about 0715, 30 June 1993.

6.  On 19 May 1994, he received NJP for stealing property from another Soldier valued 
at about $200.00.

7.  On 24 May 1994, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was initiating 
action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, (Active 
Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) paragraph 14-12c(2), misconduct; he stole 
personal property, failed to be at his appointed place and was disrespectful to a NCO.  
The applicant acknowledged being notified for the contemplated separation action 
against him; he was made aware of his available rights and consulted with legal 
counsel.  

8.  On 24 May 1994, the applicant’s commander recommended he be discharged under 
the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c for misconduct; he stole personal 
property, failed to be at his appointed place and was disrespectful to a NCO.  The 
Soldier has had the benefit of available counseling; further attempts at rehabilitation 
would not have been in the best interests of the Army.  

9.  On 6 June 1994, the appropriate approval authority approved the recommendation 
for discharge of the applicant and directed he be issued a general discharge certificate.

10.  On 10 June 1994, the applicant was discharged accordingly; he completed 2 years, 
6 months, and 15 days of net active service.

11.  AR 635-200, Chapter 14 separates members who demonstrate or display patterns 
of misconduct, as evidenced by his multiple instances of misconduct and 
counseling.  Paragraph 1-18 states, Commanders will insure that adequate counseling 
and rehabilitative measures have been taken before initiating action to separate a 
member. Waiving rehabilitation applies when it would not be in the best interest of the 
Army as it would not product a quality Soldier.
12.  The applicant states he was told his discharge would be changed to honorable after 
one year of his discharge.  His records show he held the rank of Private First Class 
(PFC).
13.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, his 
service record, and his statements in light of the published guidance on equity, injustice, 
or clemency. 

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, his record of 
service, the frequency and nature of his misconduct and whether of apply clemency.  
The Board found no in-service mitigating factors for the misconduct and the applicant 
provided none; the applicant provided no evidence of post-service achievements or 
letters of reference in support of a clemency determination.  Based on a preponderance 
of evidence, the Board determined that the character of service the applicant received 
at separation was not in error or unjust.

2.  After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found 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.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted 
personnel.  
    
     a.  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.  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 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members 
for misconduct.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is 
clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A 
UOTHC discharge 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.  Only a general court-martial convening authority may 
approve an honorable discharge or delegate approval authority for an honorable 
discharge under this provision of regulation.
 
     d.  Paragraph 14-12c provides for the separation when there is a pattern of 
misconduct involving acts of drug abuse 
 
     e.  Paragraph 1-18 waives the rehabilitation transfer because it would not be in the 
best interest of the Army as it would not product a quality Soldier

3.  Army Regulation 600-85 sets for the basic authority for referral and screening.  The 
commander will refer all individuals who are suspected or identified as drug and/or 
alcohol abusers, including those identified through urinalysis and blood alcohol tests.  
     
4.  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)	 AR20190004253
2

ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20190004253
5
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20190004253


3