IN THE CASE OF:  

BOARD DATE:  12 July 2019

DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20190004802


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under 
honorable conditions discharge.  

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge) 
*	DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or 
Discharge)

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 before he dies he would like to upgrade his discharge.  He does 
not have any documentation to support his request.      

3.  On 25 March 1971, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.      

4.  During the period of 20 January to 5 April 1971, the applicant received non-judicial 
punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice 
on 2 separate occasions for:

*	failing to obey a lawful order issued by a first sergeant; he was reduced to the 
rank/grade of private/E-2
*	failing to obey a “lawful order” from a superior commissioned officer; he 
forfeited pay and performed extra duty 
*	failing to obey a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer; he 
forfeited pay and performed extra duty

5.  On 5 July 1972, his commander recommended that the applicant be separated 
under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) with a general discharge.  He noted 
that the applicant had not been promoted due to his inability to adapt to the Army as 
demonstrated by his poor performance of assigned tasks coupled and poor attitude.    
He noted the applicant would probably not succeed in any other unit, he would try and 
would be unable to produce adequate results.  The applicant failed to demonstrate 
adequate potential for promotion.  

	a.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation action.  

	b.  He was medically cleared for administrative separation and his chain of 
command recommended approval of his discharge with the issuance of a General 
Discharge Certificate.

	c.  The separation authority approved his discharge based on the applicant’s failure 
to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion advancement.  He further directed the 
issuance of a General Discharge Certificate with separation program number (SPN) 
21U (separation for failure to demonstrate adequate potential for promotion).  

6.  On 7 August 1972, the applicant was separated with a general discharge in pay 
grade E-2.  His DD Form 214 showed he had 1 year, 4 months, and 13 days of total 
active service.  His awards were listed as the National Defense Service Medal and the 
Marksman Qualification Badge with Rifle (M-16) Bar. 

7.  On 26 March 1974, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s 
request for an upgrade of his discharge and determined he was properly and equitably 
discharge.

8.  Army Regulation 601-280 (Personnel Procurement – Army Reenlistment Program), 
set forth policy and prescribed procedures for denying reenlistment under the QMP.  
This program was based on the premise that reenlistment is a privilege for those whose 
performance, conduct, attitude, and potential for advancement meet Army standards.  It 
is designed to (1) enhance the quality of the career enlisted force, (2) selectively retain 
the best qualified Soldiers to 30 years of active duty, (3) deny reenlistment to non-
progressive and nonproductive Soldiers, and (4) encourage Soldiers to maintain their 
eligibility for further service.  The program [which now operates under Army Regulation 
635-200] applied to pay grades E-5 through E-9.  Department of the Army Message 
242110Z September 1971 extended it to the lower pay grades and prescribed that SPN 
21U would be applied.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) sets forth 
the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  This regulation 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.

10.  In reaching its determination, the Board should consider the applicant's petition, 
service record, and statements 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 record and published DoD guidance for consideration of discharge 
upgrade requests.  The Board considered the applicant’s statement, record of service, 
frequency and nature of his misconduct, the reason for his separation and whether to 
apply clemency.  The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors 
and 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 
upon 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

:XXX	:XXX	:XXX	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 601-280 (Army Reenlistment Program), set forth policy and 
prescribed procedures for denying reenlistment under the QMP.  This program was 
based on the premise that reenlistment is a privilege for those whose performance, 
conduct, attitude, and potential for advancement meet Army standards.  It is designed to 
(1) enhance the quality of the career enlisted force, (2) selectively retain the best 
qualified Soldiers to 30 years of active duty, (3) deny reenlistment to non-progressive 
and nonproductive Soldiers, and (4) encourage Soldiers to maintain their eligibility for 
further service.  The program [which now operates under Army Regulation 635-200] 
applied to pay grades E-5 through E-9.  Department of the Army Message 242110Z 
September 1971 extended it to the lower pay grades and prescribed that SPN 21U 
would be applied.

3.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) sets forth 
the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  This regulation 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.

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 on the basis of 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)	 AR20190004802


3

ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20190004802
6
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20190004802


4