ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  5 August 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20190006569


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  

*	upgrade of his general under honorable conditions discharge to honorable
*	remove what is current listed in item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on his 
DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
*	permission to personally appear before the Board

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 3-year time frame provided in Title 10 (Armed 
Forces), United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b) (Correction of Military Records:  
Claims Incident Thereto).  However, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records 
(ABCMR) 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, his separation was unjust because he had a serious 
alcohol problem; he asserts his alcohol addiction caused the misconduct that led to his 
adverse discharge.  He further contends he was so dependent on alcohol, it prevented 
him from obtaining the kind of representation he needed to properly defend himself.  He 
maintains everyone knew about his alcohol dependency, but no one did anything about 
it.  He continued to suffer from alcoholism for many years after leaving the Army, but 
finally sought help in 1997, when his oldest son was born.

3.  The applicant's service records show:

	a.  The applicant enlisted into the Regular Army for a 5-year term on 20 June 1991.  
When he entered active duty, he held the rank/grade of private (PV2)/E-2.  Following 
initial training, orders assigned him to Germany; he arrived on or about 6 March 1992.

	b.  On 21 May 1992, his commander offered him nonjudicial punishment (NJP) 
under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), based on nine specifications 
of writing checks without having sufficient funds; the total amount of the nine dishonored 
checks was $405, and all were written between 5 and 18 April 1992.  

	c.  Also on 21 May 1992, his commander initiated bar to reenlistment action against 
the applicant.  The commander's stated basis was the aforementioned NJP action 
pertaining to the applicant's dishonored checks; he also cited two instances when the 
applicant failed to report to duty at the time prescribed.  The battalion commander 
approved the bar to reenlistment.

	d.  On 26 May 1992, the applicant accepted the NJP action that addressed his nine 
dishonored checks; punishment included reduction from PV2 to private/E-1.

	e.  The applicant's service record includes an undated, unsigned notification 
memorandum, in which his commander advised him of his intent to separate the 
applicant under chapter 14 (Separation for Misconduct), paragraph 14-12c (Commission 
of a Serious Offense), Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – 
Enlisted Personnel).  The commander cited the applicant's dishonored checks, and the 
fact the applicant showed little regard for authority, in that he was continually late or 
absent from mandatory formations.

	f.  The applicant's service record shows an undated document that has not been 
completed; this document states the applicant consulted counsel, counsel advised him 
of his rights, and counsel told him of the effect of waiving those rights; the document is 
unsigned.

	g.  On 23 July 1992, the separation authority approved the commander's 
recommendation and directed the applicant's general discharge under honorable 
conditions; on 30 July 1992, he was discharged accordingly.  His DD Form 214 shows 
he completed 1 year, 1 month, and 11 days of his 5-year enlistment contract.  His 
separation authority was AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c; the separation code was 
"JKQ"; and the narrative reason for separation was "Misconduct – Commission of a 
Serious Offense."  He was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service Medal, 
Army Service Ribbon, and a marksmanship qualification badge.

4.  AR 15-185 (ABCMR), states an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the 
Board; however, the request for a hearing may be authorized by a panel of the Board or 
by the Director of ABCMR on a case-by-case basis.

5.  Portions of the applicant's separation packet are not available for review; specifically, 
the commander's notification memorandum and the document showing the applicant's 
elections are incomplete and unsigned.  However, in view of the fact his service record 
contains the separation authority's approval endorsement, as well as the applicant's 
DD Form 214, the Board presumes the applicant's leadership completed his separation 
properly.  

6.  As to the applicant's request to change the narrative reason for separation, per 
AR 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, the narrative reason for 
separation is linked to the separation authority.  According to AR 635-5-1 (Separation 
Program Designators (SPD), Soldiers separated under paragraph 14-12c, 
AR 635-200, are required to have "Misconduct – Commission of a Serious Offense" as 
the narrative reason for separation.

7.  The applicant argues his alcohol addiction caused the misconduct that led to his 
adverse separation and he claims his leadership offered no assistance, despite knowing 
the extent of his dependency on alcohol.

	a.  The evidence of record affirms the applicant wrote a series of dishonored checks 
within a 2-week period; the commander additionally noted the applicant was continually 
tardy or absent from formations.

	b.  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, the bar to reenlistment, the reason 
for his separation and whether to apply clemency.  The Board found insufficient 
evidence of in-service mitigating factors for the misconduct and the applicant did not 
provide evidence of post-service achievements or letters of reference in support of a 
clemency determination.  Based upon a preponderance of evidence, the Board 
determined that the character of service the applicant received and the reason for his 
separation as reflected on his DD Form 214 were not in error or unjust. 

2. The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. 
In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable 
decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the 
interest of equity and justice in this case.
3.  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 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This 
provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file 
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the 
interest of justice to do so.  

2.  AR 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of 
enlisted personnel.

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a stated an honorable discharge was separation with honor.  
Issuance of an honorable discharge certificate was appropriate when the quality of the 
Soldier's service generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of 
duty, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would clearly be 
inappropriate.  Where there were infractions of discipline, commanders were to consider 
the extent thereof, as well as the seriousness of the offense.  An honorable discharge 
could be furnished when disqualifying entries in the Soldier's military record was 
outweighed by subsequent honest and faithful service over a greater period of time.  It 
was the pattern of behavior, and not the isolated instance, which commanders should 
consider as the governing factor.

	b.  Paragraph 14-12c applied to Soldiers who had committed a serious military or 
civilian offense where the specific circumstances warranted separation and the UCMJ 
authorized a punitive (i.e. bad conduct or dishonorable) discharge.  

3.  The Manual for Courts-Martial, in effect at the time, showed Article 134 (General 
Article – Making or Uttering Worthless Checks by Dishonorably Failing to Maintain 
Funds) included a bad conduct discharge as a maximum punishment.

4.  AR 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, required the following:

*	Item 26 – Enter the proper SPD that represents the reason for separation, based 
on what is shown in AR 635-5-1
*	Item 28 – Enter the reason for separation as listed in AR 635-5-1

5.  AR 635-5-1, in effect at the time, stated "JKQ" applied to Soldiers whose discharge 
was based on paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200.  The associated narrative reason for 
separation was "Misconduct – Commission of a Serious Offense."  

6.  AR 15-185 (ABCMR) states an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the 
Board; however, the request for a hearing may be authorized by a panel of the Board or 
by the Director of ABCMR on a case-by-case basis.  In addition, paragraph 2-9 provides 
guidance on the burden of proof, and states the ABCMR begins its consideration of 
each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army 
did was correct.  

7.  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.  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.  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)	 AR20190006569

5

1