ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:

	BOARD DATE:  11 July 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20190005890


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  The applicant requests upgrade of his under other than 
honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to a general under honorable conditions 
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 DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military 
Record)
*	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for period 
ending 26 October 1983

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 would have remained in the Army and retired if he did not 
have family problems at the time of his service.  He just wants a better discharge.

3.  On 3 October 1977, at the age of 22 years old, the applicant enlisted in the Regular 
Army for a term of 3 years.

4.  The record shows on 14 April 1978, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment 
(NJP) for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 3 March 1978 and remaining absent 
until 28 March 1978.

5.  On 7 June 1978, the applicant went AWOL and on 7 July 1978, he was dropped 
from the rolls.  On 27 September 1983, he surrendered to military authorities.

6.  On 27 September 1983, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant 
for one specification of being AWOL from 7 June 1978 and remaining absent until 
27 September 1983.

7.  The applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of 
trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel 
Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10.  He consulted with legal counsel and 
was advised of the basis for the trial by court-martial, his available rights and the basis 
for voluntarily requesting discharge under the provision of AR 635-200, chapter 10.  The 
applicant elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.  

8.  The applicant's immediate commander recommended approval of his request and on 
14 October 1983, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant's request 
directing he be issued a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  

9.  On 26 October 1983, he was discharged accordingly.  His service was characterized 
as UOTHC.  He completed 8 months and 10 days of net active service this period.  His 
DD Form 214 shows:

*	He was awarded or authorized:

*	Army Service Ribbon
*	M-16 Rifle Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge

*	Dates of Time Lost During This Period:  780304 - 780327; 780607 - 830926

10.  On 15 July 1987, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s petition 
to upgrade his discharge, determining he was properly and equitably discharged.

11.  The applicant states he would have remained in the Army and retired if he did not 
have family problems at the time of his service.  His record shows he enlisted at the age 
of 22 years old, he accepted one NJP for being AWOL, charges were preferred against 
him for being AWOL, and he had 1962 days lost due to being AWOL.  He served 
8 months and 10 days of his 36 months contractual obligation.

12.  AR 635-200 states a Chapter 10 is a voluntary discharge request in-lieu of trial by 
court martial.  A member may be awarded an honorable or general discharge, if during 
the current enlistment period of obligated service he has been awarded a personal 
decoration or if warranted by the particular circumstances of a specific case.

13.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition and 
service record 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 service, the frequency and 
length of his absences, his statement regarding the AWOL periods and whether to apply 
clemency.  The Board found no mitigating factors in the records and the applicant 
provided no post-service achievements or letters of reference in support of a clemency 
determination.  The Board found insufficient evidence to support clemency and 
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

: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 (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), in 
effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of 
enlisted personnel, it states:

	a.  A Chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service) is applicable to members 
who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment 
included a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge could submit a request for discharge 
for the good of the service.  The request could be submitted at any time after the 
charges had been preferred.  Although an honorable or general discharge was 
authorized, an under other than honorable conditions discharge was normally 
considered appropriate.  

	b.  An honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled 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.

	c.  A general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  
When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but 
not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

3.  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 regarding equity, injustice or clemency determinations. 
Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence and 
BCMRs 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 discharge, which may be 
warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. The 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, an 
injustice, or clemency grounds, BCMRs shall consider the twelve stated principles in the 
guidance as well as eighteen individual factors related to the applicant.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20190005890

5

1