ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:

	BOARD DATE:  12 September 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20190009539


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration of the previous Army Board for Correction 
of Military Records (ABCMR) decision promulgated in Docket Number AR20100028815 
on 26 May 2011.  Specifically, she requests her under other than honorable conditions 
(UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to either an under honorable conditions (general) 
discharge or an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions 
of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552), 29 June 2019

FACTS:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in the 
previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number 
AR20100028815 on 26 May 2011.

2.  The applicant submitted a new argument with this application that was not 
considered by the Board during its initial consideration.  This new argument warrants 
consideration at this time.

3.  The applicant states:

   a.  She believes the discharge she received was unjust due to the inaccurate 
information from service in Heidelburg, Germany.  She completed service in Operation 
Desert Storm, gave birth to a child (son), and deployed to Germany immediately 
afterwards.  The reason for her discharge was mainly due to her combat pay she did not 
immediately receive.  The system at the exchange for receiving electronic, household 
items, and cash in advance before payday was available conveniently for service 
members living in the barracks.  

   b.  She paid back the amount of money she received with interest before she was 
discharged from the service.  She did not deny that she owed the money and she 
agreed to charges that she believes resulted in more penalties to include denials of 
compensation, support, and employment.  Her discharge should be upgraded because 
she has finished making her payments and admitted her wrongdoing.

4.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 June 1989.  She completed 
training as a graphic document specialist.  

5.  The applicant served in Saudi Arabia, in support of Operations Desert Shield and 
Desert Storm, from 1 December 1990 through 1 May 1991.  She served in the Federal 
Republic of Germany from 20 March 1992 through 6 January 1993.  

6.  The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are not available 
for review.  However, her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty) shows she was discharged on 7 January 1993, under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 10, for the 
good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Her DD Form 214 confirms her 
service was characterized as "Under Other Than Honorable Conditions."

7.  The issuance of a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, 
Chapter 10, required the applicant to have requested from the Army – voluntarily, 
willingly, and in writing – discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  It is presumed that all 
requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully 
protected throughout the separation process.  The applicant has provided no 
information that would indicate the contrary.  Further, it is presumed that the applicant’s 
discharge accurately reflects her overall record of service.  

8.  The Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of 
her discharge on or about 15 May 1995.

9.  The ABCMR denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of her discharge on 
26 May 2011.

10.  The Board should consider the applicant's statement in accordance with the 
published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined there is 
insufficient evidence to grant relief and amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in 
Docket Number AR20100028815 on 26 May 2011.  The Board applied Office of the 
Secretary of Defense standards of liberal consideration and clemency to the complete 
evidentiary record, including the applicant’s statement and did not find any evidence of 
error, injustice, or inequity.  The record is void of and the applicant did not provide 
evidence of the specific circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge or 
evidence that she paid off the debt.  Furthermore, the Board found insufficient evidence 
of post-service honorable conduct that might have mitigated the misconduct that 
resulted in the discharge characterization.  The Board agreed that the applicant’s 
discharge characterization is appropriate.
  
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 Board determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant amendment of 
the ABCMR's decision in Docket Number AR20100028815 on 26 May 2011.  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.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted 
personnel.

   a.  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.

   b.  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.

   c.  Chapter 10 states that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for 
which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for 
discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be 
submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's 
admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a UOTHC 
discharge would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of 
the service.

2.  The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to 
Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records 
on 25 July 2018, regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations.  Clemency 
generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence.  Boards for 
Correction of Military/Naval Records 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 a discharge, 
which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds.  

	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, Boards 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. 

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20190009539

3

1