IN THE CASE OF:

BOARD DATE:  30 July 2019

DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20190006433


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  The applicant requests in effect his under other than 
honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 293 (Application for Review of Discharge or Dismissal)

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 would like a record review of his discharge based on 
his military personnel file.

3.  On 6 December 1978, the applicant entered the Regular Army for three years at the 
age of 18.   He successfully completed training and on 10 April 1979 he was assigned 
to 3rd Battalion, 28th Infantry Division, Germany as an Infantryman. 

4.  On 12 February 1980, he received NJP for willfully disobeying a superior 
commissioned officer. 

5.  On 19 May 1981, he received NJP for leaving his appointed place of duty without 
authority.

6.  On 3 August 1981, the applicant received non-judicial punishment (NJP) for violating 
the company policy letter by having a bottle whiskey in his wall locker.

7.  The available evidence does not provide a charge sheet; however, on 6 August 
1981, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of 
trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 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 Army Regulation 635-200, 
chapter 10.  He signed a request for discharge for the Good of the Service.

8.  On 7 August 1981, the applicant’s commander recommended approval of his 
request and scheduled him for a mental evaluation.  His records are void of the results 
of the exam.

9.  The applicant's intermediate commanders recommended approval of his request and 
the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant's request on 15 August 
1981; he directed the applicant be issued an OTHC discharge.

10.  On 24 August 1981, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  He served 2 years, 
8 months, and 19 days.  

11.  The applicant’s record shows he earned his general education diploma (GED); 
completed basic training; completed advanced individual training (AIT) earning military 
occupation skill (MOS) 11B (Infantryman); served honorably from 6 December 1978 to 
28 September 1980; received a Letter of Commendation for qualifying as an expert 
gunner and for assisting in training other men.  He reenlisted on 29 September 1980 for 
six years and as part of his reenlistment he was recommended for promotion to 
Specialist (SPC).  The highest rank he held was Private First Class (PFC).  His record is 
void of a charge sheet.  

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 states a Chapter 10 is a voluntary discharge request in-
lieu of trial by court martial.  In a case in which an UOTHC is authorized by regulation, 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, his 
service record, and his statements in light of the published DOD 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 to apply clemency.  
The Board majority found the character of service too harsh for the misconduct and for 
reasons of clemency, determined that an upgrade was appropriate.  One member did 
not find sufficient evidence to overcome the misconduct and recommended denial of the 
request.  

2.  After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board majority 
determined that relief was warranted.

BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:X	:X	:	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:	:	:X	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 his DD Form 
214 for the period of service ending 24 August 1981 to show in item 24 (Character of 
Service ) – “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 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 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), as in 
effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel, it 
states:   
 
     a.  A Chapter 10 (Discharge in Lieu of Trail by Court Martial) 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 is a separation with honor.  The honorable 
characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service has generally 
met standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  
 
     c.  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.
 
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 (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)	 AR20190006433
3
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20190006433


4