ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	

	BOARD DATE:  18 July 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20190004692


APPLICANT REQUESTS:   The applicant requests his general discharge under 
honorable conditions be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of 
the United States) in lieu of a DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military 
Record)
*	Oath of Enlistment Certificate for the Mississippi State Guard
*	Certificate of Appreciation from the Mississippi State Guard

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, in effect, he was discharged on 28 February 1994.  Now he is 
self-employed and he owns a Security Company.  He also states he has been a 
member of the Mississippi State Guard Military Police Unit since December 2015 and 
he feels he is worthy of such an upgrade of his discharge.  

3.  On 15 June 1993, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for 5 years in 
military occupational specialty (MOS) 39G (Automated Communications Computer).  On 
23 August 1993, he was assigned to Fort Gordon, GA for training in MOS 39G.

4.  Between November 1993 and January 1994, General Counseling Forms confirm he 
failed numerous written and practical tests, he failed remedial training, and he was 
recycled.  A General Counseling Form, date 19 January 1994, confirms he stated, in 
effect, he was miserable and wanted out of the military.


5.  A memorandum, dated 7 January 1994, subject:  Letter of Notification of Faculty 
Board Action, confirms the applicant was recommended for dismissal from the MOS 
39G Course, due to academic failure.

6.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform 
Code of Military Justice for failing to report to his appointed place of duty at the time 
prescribed on 18 January 1994.  His punishment included reduction to private/E-1, a 
forfeiture of pay (of which a portion was suspended), extra duty, and restriction.  The 
dates and signatures on this form are illegible.

7.  On 2 February 1994, his commander notified him he was initiating action to 
discharge him under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 
(Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) for unsatisfactory performance, due to 
academic failure.  

8.  A Report of Medical Examination, dated 4 February 1994, shows the applicant was 
determined to be qualified for separation.  A Report of Mental Status Evaluation also 
confirms the applicant was cleared for administrative action deemed appropriate by his 
chain of command.

9.  On 15 February 1994, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's 
notification to separate him and consulted with legal counsel.  He 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 him.  He indicated he desired to submit a 
statement in his own behalf.  The applicant’s statement shows he requested an 
honorable discharge.  He admitted that he had done somethings that he should not 
have and he regretted it.  He just wanted to go home and take care of his family, his 
wife was 51/2 months pregnant.  He also stated he planned to go back to his old job as 
a mail carrier for the post office and he needed an honorable discharge.

10.  The applicant’s immediate commander recommend the applicant’s separation in 
accordance with chapter 13, AR 635-200 by reason of unsatisfactory performance, due 
to receiving an Article 15, and academic failure.  The commander recommended the 
issuance of a general discharge.  

11.  On 18 February 1994, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation 
requirements, approved the separation action, and ordered the applicant’s discharge 
under the provisions of AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance and 
directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.   

12.  Accordingly, on 28 February 1994, he was discharged.  He completed 8 months 
and 16 days of net active service this period.  
 
13.  On 21 August 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed his 
discharge and found it proper and equitable.  The ADRB unanimously voted to deny him 
a change in the character of service and the reason for discharge

14.  AR 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 provides an Oath of Enlistment Certificate, dated 12 December 2015, 
and a Certificate of Appreciation for annual training, dated 30 April 2017, both 
documents are from the Mississippi State Guard.  He contends he owns a Security 
Company and he has served as a member of the Mississippi State Guard since 
December 2015.  He believes he is worthy of an upgrade of his RA discharge.

16.  His record shows he completed 8 months and 16 days of his 5 year enlistment 
obligation and he was not awarded an MOS.  In reaching its determination, the Board 
can consider the applicant's petitions, and his service record in light of the published 
Department of Defense 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 service record, the length of 
his service, his age at enlistment, the frequency and nature of his misconduct, his 
academic failure and non-judicial punishment and whether to apply clemency.  The 
Board found insufficient mitigating factors in the record and considered the applicant’s 
statement regarding post-service accomplishments, but found no supporting 
documentation.  The Board determined, based on the preponderance of evidence, that 
the character of service the applicant received at discharge 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 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.  

3.  The above regulation also 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. 

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. 



ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20190004692

6

1